Climate change and other predictions of Imminent Doom

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Typhoon wrote:
Well, you're hardly the first person to believe that he knows what is best for everyone else and to suggest that draconian measures be imposed because of some imminent, yet ever receding, imaginary crisis.
That's why they call them fascists. Or in today's lingo, coastal elitists.

Very similar mentality to the religious nut jobs who gather every few years and wait to be raptured out of here before the Apocalypse. Or function as inquisitors for the "their religion" and torture or kill people to save them...... for their own good..... all in the name of god's will, compassion, or their imagined superiority.

BTW, the Apocalypse happens next Thursday....... trust me. Not by AGW either, incoming Black Hole....
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: 9/18/17 report on overestimation of carbon effect

Post by Typhoon »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:MS0qLhqaZDM
For those interested in the devil in the details

Climate Etc. - Ross McKitrick | Are Climate Models Overstating Warming?

One should keep in mind that the major part of these climate model simulations are not from first principles: fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, etc., as the computing power to do so does not yet exist. Rather they consist mostly of fitting thousands of parameters to empirical - observational data.
Somewhat useful for studying climate, but with no predictive ability.
With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

~ John von Neumann
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Freeman Dyson | Heretical Thoughts on Science and Society
In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed.

As a scientist I do not have much faith in predictions. Science is organized unpredictability. The best scientists like to arrange things in an experiment to be as unpredictable as possible, and then they do the experiment to see what will happen. You might say that if something is predictable then it is not science. When I make predictions, I am not speaking as a scientist. I am speaking as a story-teller, and my predictions are science-fiction rather than science. The predictions of science-fiction writers are notoriously inaccurate. Their purpose is to imagine what might happen rather than to describe what will happen. I will be telling stories that challenge the prevailing dogmas of today. The prevailing dogmas may be right, but they still need to be challenged. I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies. Since I am heretic, I am accustomed to being in the minority. If I could persuade everyone to agree with me, I would not be a heretic.

We are lucky that we can be heretics today without any danger of being burned at the stake. . . .
Freeman Dyson
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
Posts: 2152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Miss_Faucie_Fishtits »

That's because climate change is seen as a stalking horse for economic redistribution and seizing power dominance. A certain sort of classical liberal, which describes many Republicans, have a special interest in economics and a keen observation of public policy. Physical science enters too, but not sufficiently to dislodge the stalking horse sentiment.....
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by noddy »

thats pretty much my thoughts.

its a huge leap from "climate change" to needing a "government created carbon market with credits for well connected polluters that somehow just means i pay more tax and other people get richer"

their is also a certain level of irony to be found in the fact my house and car are the things being accused of being wrong, yet they are the government mandated versions from the licensed suppliers and the cheaper, low energy alternatives are illegal because of ... reasons...
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:That's because climate change is seen as a stalking horse for economic redistribution and seizing power dominance. A certain sort of classical liberal, which describes many Republicans, have a special interest in economics and a keen observation of public policy. Physical science enters too, but not sufficiently to dislodge the stalking horse sentiment.....

This climate change in America is choice between future healthy living or losing one's JOB down the road

America's industry did not modernize, profits were paid out by dividends (hedge fund give a sh*t for future this and that, they want to cash the chips, buy a jet and party) .. German industry machines average age is 3 yrs, America's is WW2 vintage.

In that sense, America has no money to modernize (would need many Trillion dollars) .. the choice is continue poisoning or close down (lose Job), meaning use coal or close down if Paris accord agreed.

The educated people know this, and, prefer to poison the environment but continue have a job and party

The uneducated folks think "things can be done for free", and says lets have good quality air and water and and have the jobs too (remember : Mexicans have stollen our jobs)

.
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:thats pretty much my thoughts.

its a huge leap from "climate change" to needing a "government created carbon market with credits for well connected polluters that somehow just means i pay more tax and other people get richer"

their is also a certain level of irony to be found in the fact my house and car are the things being accused of being wrong, yet they are the government mandated versions from the licensed suppliers and the cheaper, low energy alternatives are illegal because of ... reasons...
Climate Change/AGW is just another religion used to scare the rubes and grab power/money/property. Rubes love doomer porn.

"Climate Scientists/Experts" shot themselves in the foot with their accuracy claims. Anyone who thinks the "experts" can accurately measure the temperature of the Earth to 0.1 degrees, needs to get a thermometer with rapid response and 0.1 degree resolution and spend a week gathering data. Even if they never venture outside their HVAC controlled dwelling it would be a learning experience.

The Faithful will reply with "satellites and computers!!!!" Even it one buys into "modern technology is that good," correlating current data to data that is decades old, or centuries old with similar claimed 0.1 degree accuracy, is truly an act of faith. Tree rings, ice cores, soil samples, really?

Then there is the admitted lying, forged data, and religious zealot language of the AGW disciples. On one with a valid scientific point of view would ever refuse to share raw data, or attempt to silence their opposition by labeling them as science deniers, Flat Earthers, Holocaust Deniers, etc.

And lets not forget, the Sun is a perfectly consistent source of energy, and therefore must be ignored by our religion.

I suspect the people who tend to buy into AGW more as they become more educated are studying soft sciences, while those who believe in AGW less as they become more educated are studying hard science.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm [pdf]
In Private, Climate Scientists Are Much Less Certain than They Tell the Public
The mantra of “settled science” is belied by the inherent complexity of climate change as a scientific
problem, the plethora of agents and processes that influence the global climate, and disagreements
among scientists. Manufacture and enforcement of a “consensus” on the topic of human-caused
climate change acts to the detriment of the scientific process, our understanding of climate change,
and the policy responses. Indeed, it becomes a fundamentally anti-scientific process when debate,
disagreement, and uncertainty are suppressed.

This essay by Rupert Darwall explores the expressions of public certainty by climate scientists versus
the private expressions of uncertainty, in context of a small Workshop on Climate organized by the
American Physical Society (APS). I [Prof. Judith Curry] was privileged to participate in this workshop, which included
three climate scientists who support the climate change consensus and three climate scientists who
do not—all of whom were questioned by a panel of distinguished physicists.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Zack Morris »

Typhoon wrote:A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm [pdf]
In Private, Climate Scientists Are Much Less Certain than They Tell the Public
The mantra of “settled science” is belied by the inherent complexity of climate change as a scientific
problem, the plethora of agents and processes that influence the global climate, and disagreements
among scientists. Manufacture and enforcement of a “consensus” on the topic of human-caused
climate change acts to the detriment of the scientific process, our understanding of climate change,
and the policy responses. Indeed, it becomes a fundamentally anti-scientific process when debate,
disagreement, and uncertainty are suppressed.

This essay by Rupert Darwall explores the expressions of public certainty by climate scientists versus
the private expressions of uncertainty, in context of a small Workshop on Climate organized by the
American Physical Society (APS). I [Prof. Judith Curry] was privileged to participate in this workshop, which included
three climate scientists who support the climate change consensus and three climate scientists who
do not—all of whom were questioned by a panel of distinguished physicists.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Between this and Freeman Dyson, you can't even find credible scientific sources to back up your hot air anymore.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Zack Morris »

Simple Minded wrote:
noddy wrote:thats pretty much my thoughts.

its a huge leap from "climate change" to needing a "government created carbon market with credits for well connected polluters that somehow just means i pay more tax and other people get richer"

their is also a certain level of irony to be found in the fact my house and car are the things being accused of being wrong, yet they are the government mandated versions from the licensed suppliers and the cheaper, low energy alternatives are illegal because of ... reasons...
Climate Change/AGW is just another religion used to scare the rubes and grab power/money/property. Rubes love doomer porn.
That's a meaningless statement. I could just as easily say that "Anti-AGW Idiocy is just another religion used to scare the rubes and grab power/money/property. Rubes love conspiracy porn." You're biased in favor of the existing system and prefer to reward the oil/coal/Trump clique vs. the solar/wind/Musk one. But it's not a rational argument against transferring resources from one to the other.
"Climate Scientists/Experts" shot themselves in the foot with their accuracy claims. Anyone who thinks the "experts" can accurately measure the temperature of the Earth to 0.1 degrees, needs to get a thermometer with rapid response and 0.1 degree resolution and spend a week gathering data. Even if they never venture outside their HVAC controlled dwelling it would be a learning experience.
Not really. Morons shot their grandchildren in the foot by allowing overly optimistic accuracy claims to reinforce their denialism and bias toward inaction.
The Faithful will reply with "satellites and computers!!!!" Even it one buys into "modern technology is that good," correlating current data to data that is decades old, or centuries old with similar claimed 0.1 degree accuracy, is truly an act of faith. Tree rings, ice cores, soil samples, really?
Yeah, yeah, you're an old timer who doesn't trust satellites and new-fangled things like lasers. How much thermal energy does 0.1 degrees represent averaged over the entire planet's atmosphere? Furthermore, what is this alleged 0.1 degree number really claiming to indicate? What about 400 ppm vs. 300 ppm or a historical ~220 ppm? Is that a meaningful enough change for you? Do you believe that a virtually instantaneous doubling of a green house gas will have a negligible effect?
And lets not forget, the Sun is a perfectly consistent source of energy, and therefore must be ignored by our religion.
Let's not forget all the times the sun has been ruled out as a factor. Let's not forget all the times climate denialists have spun bizarre fables about the sun and fanciful warming on other planets.
I suspect the people who tend to buy into AGW more as they become more educated are studying soft sciences, while those who believe in AGW less as they become more educated are studying hard science.
I suspect your wrong. I suspect that when scientists in quantitative fields investigate climate science, they tend to come around. I suspect social trolls who gravitate toward Trumpism, libertarianism, and the like, are incapable of being intellectually objective enough to analyze the climate change problem rationally.
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
Posts: 2152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Miss_Faucie_Fishtits »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:That's because climate change is seen as a stalking horse for economic redistribution and seizing power dominance. A certain sort of classical liberal, which describes many Republicans, have a special interest in economics and a keen observation of public policy. Physical science enters too, but not sufficiently to dislodge the stalking horse sentiment.....

This climate change in America is choice between future healthy living or losing one's JOB down the road

America's industry did not modernize, profits were paid out by dividends (hedge fund give a sh*t for future this and that, they want to cash the chips, buy a jet and party) .. German industry machines average age is 3 yrs, America's is WW2 vintage.

In that sense, America has no money to modernize (would need many Trillion dollars) .. the choice is continue poisoning or close down (lose Job), meaning use coal or close down if Paris accord agreed.

The educated people know this, and, prefer to poison the environment but continue have a job and party

The uneducated folks think "things can be done for free", and says lets have good quality air and water and and have the jobs too (remember : Mexicans have stollen our jobs)

.
Andrew Carnegie can tell us. Following through on capitalistic values and principles is hard and talking a good game is not the same as self-discipline and commitment to the future:
The lesson of the shirtsleeves proverb is all generations need to be connected to the family and the family’s values. If a family is only connected by money and legal structures, it is difficult to prevent the shirtsleeves proverb from becoming reality. Families need to come together on a regular basis and be reminded of who they are, where they come from and in what way they are different and how that difference can benefit them and the future generations of the family.
http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2 ... 639116001/

You can extend this line of thinking to protecting the world as well........
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Zack Morris wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
noddy wrote:thats pretty much my thoughts.

its a huge leap from "climate change" to needing a "government created carbon market with credits for well connected polluters that somehow just means i pay more tax and other people get richer"

their is also a certain level of irony to be found in the fact my house and car are the things being accused of being wrong, yet they are the government mandated versions from the licensed suppliers and the cheaper, low energy alternatives are illegal because of ... reasons...
Climate Change/AGW is just another religion used to scare the rubes and grab power/money/property. Rubes love doomer porn.
That's a meaningless statement. I could just as easily say that "Anti-AGW Idiocy is just another religion used to scare the rubes and grab power/money/property. Rubes love conspiracy porn." You're biased in favor of the existing system and prefer to reward the oil/coal/Trump clique vs. the solar/wind/Musk one. But it's not a rational argument against transferring resources from one to the other.
"Climate Scientists/Experts" shot themselves in the foot with their accuracy claims. Anyone who thinks the "experts" can accurately measure the temperature of the Earth to 0.1 degrees, needs to get a thermometer with rapid response and 0.1 degree resolution and spend a week gathering data. Even if they never venture outside their HVAC controlled dwelling it would be a learning experience.
Not really. Morons shot their grandchildren in the foot by allowing overly optimistic accuracy claims to reinforce their denialism and bias toward inaction.
The Faithful will reply with "satellites and computers!!!!" Even it one buys into "modern technology is that good," correlating current data to data that is decades old, or centuries old with similar claimed 0.1 degree accuracy, is truly an act of faith. Tree rings, ice cores, soil samples, really?
Yeah, yeah, you're an old timer who doesn't trust satellites and new-fangled things like lasers. How much thermal energy does 0.1 degrees represent averaged over the entire planet's atmosphere? Furthermore, what is this alleged 0.1 degree number really claiming to indicate? What about 400 ppm vs. 300 ppm or a historical ~220 ppm? Is that a meaningful enough change for you? Do you believe that a virtually instantaneous doubling of a green house gas will have a negligible effect?
And lets not forget, the Sun is a perfectly consistent source of energy, and therefore must be ignored by our religion.
Let's not forget all the times the sun has been ruled out as a factor. Let's not forget all the times climate denialists have spun bizarre fables about the sun and fanciful warming on other planets.
I suspect the people who tend to buy into AGW more as they become more educated are studying soft sciences, while those who believe in AGW less as they become more educated are studying hard science.
I suspect your wrong. I suspect that when scientists in quantitative fields investigate climate science, they tend to come around. I suspect social trolls who gravitate toward Trumpism, libertarianism, and the like, are incapable of being intellectually objective enough to analyze the climate change problem rationally.
:lol:

Zack, you still got nothing in your "logic" other than "the high priests of my religion claim the data is accurate, and all who deny the "truth" of our claims are heretics. This pisses us True Believers off, so we insult them."

Your "thought process" is no different than the Christian who claims the Bible is the true word of God by definition or the Muslim who claims the Koran is true word of Allah by definition.

Try to make your case without sounding like a religious charlatan. You like everyone else are entitled to your religious beliefs.

Extraordinary claims provides extraordinary proof.

I claim that drinking a teaspoon of unicorn blood every day will grant one immortality. You can't dispute my claim, therefore my claim is true. Yea I win!!!

Me thinks you don't understand the word logic, or that one can't prove a negative.

Have you tried measuring the temperature even inside your climate controlled house or apartment to within 0.1 degree? How did that work out for you? Care to share your methodology?
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Zack Morris »

The data looks far more plausible to me that Christianity: a massive increase in (human-generated) CO2 emissions and an uptick in average global temperature (as one would expect given the greenhouse phenomenon), with no known counterbalancing mechanisms. The geological record encodes past climate-related catastrophes that played out over a much longer period of time than we have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for. None of this is "religion".

Your belief seems to be rooted in your bizarre (and irrelevant) belief that temperature cannot be meaningfully measured to less than a degree Kelvin. It's not a religious belief, I'll give you that, but it's a prime example of either a surplus of hubris, lack of wisdom, or both. More often than not, when a nobody thinks they know better than the global community of scientists about a topic, it is he not the scientists who needs to check his assumptions. Of course, we've seen a lot of this armchair quackery on this forum over the years, with people touting everything from homeopathy, to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, denying the viral origin of a well-studied epidemic, and even Reagonomics.
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

:roll:

Like I said Zack, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you are still in the mental realm of a religious fanatic.

The overwhelming consensus of "Christians" is that the Bible is truth. The overwhelming consensus of "Climate Scientists" is that "Climate Science" is truth. "My tribe is right! They suck! Am I right guys?"

But you are entitled to your religion, just like everyone else.

Like I said, rubes love doomer porn. Been that way for eons. Some actually earn a paycheck by promoting doomer porn. Paul Erlich at his finest.

https://books.google.com/books?id=gyrLj ... on&f=false

Let me know when you get an accurate thermometer and have measured the temperature of even a small, closed system like your apartment to 0.1 degree accurately. I would love to hear you describe your methodology. Should be quite the learning experience for you.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Zack Morris wrote:
Typhoon wrote:A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm [pdf]
In Private, Climate Scientists Are Much Less Certain than They Tell the Public
The mantra of “settled science” is belied by the inherent complexity of climate change as a scientific
problem, the plethora of agents and processes that influence the global climate, and disagreements
among scientists. Manufacture and enforcement of a “consensus” on the topic of human-caused
climate change acts to the detriment of the scientific process, our understanding of climate change,
and the policy responses. Indeed, it becomes a fundamentally anti-scientific process when debate,
disagreement, and uncertainty are suppressed.

This essay by Rupert Darwall explores the expressions of public certainty by climate scientists versus
the private expressions of uncertainty, in context of a small Workshop on Climate organized by the
American Physical Society (APS). I [Prof. Judith Curry] was privileged to participate in this workshop, which included
three climate scientists who support the climate change consensus and three climate scientists who
do not—all of whom were questioned by a panel of distinguished physicists.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Between this and Freeman Dyson, you can't even find credible scientific sources to back up your hot air anymore.
You should have read it instead of dismissing it out of hand due to preconceived prejudice as it was a report on the
APS [American Physical Society] climate change seminar.

You may have learned something instead of parroting the usual platitudes.

Freeman Dyson will be remembered by the community of physicists for his towering achievements and insights as long as such a community exists.

You and other ankle-biters, not so much.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: 9/18/17 report on overestimation of carbon effect

Post by Typhoon »

Accidentally edited ZM's post instead of quoting. Sorry.

ZM's post along my replies is below.
Typhoon wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:MS0qLhqaZDM
For those interested in the devil in the details

Climate Etc. - Ross McKitrick | Are Climate Models Overstating Warming?

One should keep in mind that the major part of these climate model simulations are not from first principles: fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, etc., as the computing power to do so does not yet exist. Rather they consist mostly of fitting thousands of parameters to empirical - observational data.
Somewhat useful for studying climate, but with no predictive ability.
This is false. Even GCMs are based on fluid and thermodynamic models.
Current models, due to existing computing limitations, are not even close to the spatial-temporal resolution required to be full first principles fluid + thermodynamic models. If this was the case, then the models would all converge to close agreement.

Instead, massive approximations are made using hundreds of empirical parameters a.k.a. guesstimates.
With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

~ John von Neumann
Image

Resulting in a dog's breakfast of predictions all of which predict a larger rise in the global temperature anomaly than has been observed.
That the entire climate cannot be simulated from first principles does not invalidate modeling as the best possible investigative approach upon which to base policy decisions.


The current models are toy models, useful for study climate, but with no predictive skill and utility.
Typhoon wrote:The fundamental science behind CO2-driven warming is very well understood.
Yes. Direct CO2 infrared absorption leads to a logarithmic saturating increase in warming.

Image

MODTRAN

This fundamental physics does not give the temperature rise range predicted by the models.

To generate more CO2 driven warming, the models assume additional, empirically unobserved, effects such as CO2 - water vapour positive feedback.

Yet global humidity has not risen.

Image

Along with assumptions about clouds, i.e., the role of the dominant greenhouse gas - water vapour.
It is also well understood that there is no alternative hypothesis that explains both the rising atmospheric carbon concentration and warming trend. Interestingly, Judith Curry (your lone credible source as of late) would strongly disagree with your view on climatology. This article does not support your views. A "systemic error" does not imply the models are useless.
Quite. Systemic errors, i.e., intrinsic incorrect biases, indicate that the models are wrong and thus less than useless for prediction and policy.

The alternative hypothesis is obvious. Natural climate variation given that climate is a driven dynamic process far from thermodynamics equilibrium.
Or in layman's terms, the climate has been constantly changing since the earth first had a climate.

It is notable that that the time series of purported global anomaly temperature rise since ~1890 cannot cannot be distinguished from a random time series.

Unlike climate change hysterics, the activist MSM, and yourself, the APS [American Physical Society] knows who are the experts in the field.

APS Climate Change Statement Workshop

Invited Experts:
Dr. John Christy
Dr. William Collins
Dr. Judith Christy
Dr. Isaac Held
Dr. Richard Lindzen
Dr. Benjamin Santer
Given what is both known and -- crucially -- unknown about climate processes, you cannot make a rational argument that carbon emissions should continue unabated. They must be slashed, even if that means a temporary decline in "standard of living."
Speculative extrapolation, promoting a ruinous policy, unsupported by evidence.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote:The data looks far more plausible to me that Christianity: a massive increase in (human-generated) CO2 emissions and an uptick in average global temperature (as one would expect given the greenhouse phenomenon), with no known counterbalancing mechanisms. The geological record encodes past climate-related catastrophes that played out over a much longer period of time than we have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for. None of this is "religion".

Your belief seems to be rooted in your bizarre (and irrelevant) belief that temperature cannot be meaningfully measured to less than a degree Kelvin. It's not a religious belief, I'll give you that, but it's a prime example of either a surplus of hubris, lack of wisdom, or both. More often than not, when a nobody thinks they know better than the global community of scientists about a topic, it is he not the scientists who needs to check his assumptions. Of course, we've seen a lot of this armchair quackery on this forum over the years, with people touting everything from homeopathy, to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, denying the viral origin of a well-studied epidemic, and even Reagonomics.
The scientific consensus has been wrong many times over on many topics. Anything that cannot be repeatedly demonstrated should not be trusted and is not science.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: 9/18/17 report on overestimation of carbon effect

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote:Given what is both known and -- crucially -- unknown about climate processes, you cannot make a rational argument that carbon emissions should continue unabated. They must be slashed, even if that means a temporary decline in "standard of living."
You should go first.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... ng-danger/
Conservationists take nine flights a year, despite knowing danger to environment, study shows

Conservationists may preach about the importance of going green to save the planet, but most have a carbon footprint which is virtually no different to anyone else, a new study has shown.

Scientists as Cambridge University were keen to find out whether being fully informed about global warming, plastic in the ocean or the environmental impact of eating meat, triggers more ethical behaviour.

But when they examined the lifestyles of conservation scientists they discovered most still flew frequently – an average of nine flights a year – ate meat or fish approximately five times a week and rarely purchased carbon offsets for their own emissions.

They were also less green in travelling to work than medics, and kept more dogs and cats. A recent study suggested pets are a hefty ecological burden. It takes more than two acres of grazing pasture to keep a medium-sized dog fed with meat, while the eco-footprint of a cat is similar to a Volkswagen Golf.
Censorship isn't necessary
Simple Minded

Re: 9/18/17 report on overestimation of carbon effect

Post by Simple Minded »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Given what is both known and -- crucially -- unknown about climate processes, you cannot make a rational argument that carbon emissions should continue unabated. They must be slashed, even if that means a temporary decline in "standard of living."
You should go first.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... ng-danger/
Conservationists take nine flights a year, despite knowing danger to environment, study shows

Conservationists may preach about the importance of going green to save the planet, but most have a carbon footprint which is virtually no different to anyone else, a new study has shown.

Scientists as Cambridge University were keen to find out whether being fully informed about global warming, plastic in the ocean or the environmental impact of eating meat, triggers more ethical behaviour.

But when they examined the lifestyles of conservation scientists they discovered most still flew frequently – an average of nine flights a year – ate meat or fish approximately five times a week and rarely purchased carbon offsets for their own emissions.

They were also less green in travelling to work than medics, and kept more dogs and cats. A recent study suggested pets are a hefty ecological burden. It takes more than two acres of grazing pasture to keep a medium-sized dog fed with meat, while the eco-footprint of a cat is similar to a Volkswagen Golf.
I hear some green alarmists even live in ocean front cities. Stupid or shysters?

".....while the eco-footprint of a cat is similar to a Volkswagen Golf" :shock:

Whoa! that's one big f**king eco-cat! :o
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:The data looks far more plausible to me that Christianity: a massive increase in (human-generated) CO2 emissions and an uptick in average global temperature (as one would expect given the greenhouse phenomenon), with no known counterbalancing mechanisms. The geological record encodes past climate-related catastrophes that played out over a much longer period of time than we have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for. None of this is "religion".

Your belief seems to be rooted in your bizarre (and irrelevant) belief that temperature cannot be meaningfully measured to less than a degree Kelvin. It's not a religious belief, I'll give you that, but it's a prime example of either a surplus of hubris, lack of wisdom, or both. More often than not, when a nobody thinks they know better than the global community of scientists about a topic, it is he not the scientists who needs to check his assumptions. Of course, we've seen a lot of this armchair quackery on this forum over the years, with people touting everything from homeopathy, to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, denying the viral origin of a well-studied epidemic, and even Reagonomics.
The scientific consensus has been wrong many times over on many topics. Anything that cannot be repeatedly demonstrated should not be trusted and is not science.
The consensus of scientific opinion has been wrong many times over many topics.

When there exists an overwhelming amount of strong, in the statistical sense, experimental evidence these is no need to claim a consensus of opinion.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Typhoon wrote:
The consensus of scientific opinion has been wrong many times over many topics.
Yep. That's why in spite of what the "experts" tell us, the science is never "settled."

If their "science" was solid, the ubiquitous insults of "science denier," "The science is settled." and "flat Earther" would have never come into existence. When people who claim to be knowledgable, resort reflexively to grade school play ground bully tactics of discussion, or the language of a religious charlatan, that is a red flag.
Typhoon wrote: When there exists an overwhelming amount of strong, in the statistical sense, experimental evidence these is no need invoke a consensus of opinion.
Not so long ago, in "the geological record," the disciples of the church of doomer porn currently known as "Climate Change," marketed themselves as "Global Warming" fear mongers. Not long before that mission statement change, they were pushing "the Coming Ice Age" apocalypse.

"Climate Change" is better marketing, all known weather patterns are evidence of climate change, and unusually stable conditions are also due to "climate change." It says so on page 43.

The whole premise hangs on the validity of their claim to be able to measure the temperature of the Earth to within 0.1 degree or less. Not just now with modern technology, but also their claim to similar accuracy in centuries and millennia past. None of the True Believers jump at the chance to prove that claim.

"Climate Change" mania is nothing more than the latest fad in a long history of manias. Nothing to do with intelligence of the True Believer, just the human tendency to herd.

Shirley, "If it is trending, it is true!" is the best of all arguments, not just for science, but for everything. Everyone knows it's true proves the skeptic is a dummy. right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordi ... _of_Crowds
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

From Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds:

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

"Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome."

"We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them."

"We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first."
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by noddy »

historically humans have needed alot of fantasy to live in their lavender lives of irrelevance.

dreams of a better tommorow, dreams of racial supremecy, dreams of hairy sky gods approving of it, dreams of any ole crap.

living in a government controlled single room ghetto and queuing up for your 1/7 billion share of rice and protein subsitute does not consitute a dream for the future.
ultracrepidarian
Post Reply