Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position
"He's not a skeptic if he's already decided that the climate scientists are wrong and warming has stopped."
But, but, but... it _HAS_ !!!
President Donald Trump this month nominated US House Rep James Bridenstine (R-OK) to be the next NASA administrator. America's space agency has been without a top boss since Charles Bolden resigned on January 20, and the organization has had to deal with proposed major cuts to its funding since then. While Bridenstine is a …
"He's not a skeptic if he's already decided that the climate scientists are wrong and warming has stopped."
But, but, but... it _HAS_ !!!
if you work at NASA, rush to back up your data ASAP!
The moment he starts at NASA he'll demand that every reference to climate change be taken down off their websites and destroy all records and documents and data about it.
This has already been happening.
The moment he starts at NASA he'll demand that every reference to climate change propaganda be taken down off their websites (finally), and then get back to what NASA was created to do, namely explore space, not engage in extremist politics.
You warmist true believers will just have to get used to the fact that our culture is not yours to control. You had a good run but you lost. Time for those with mature viewpoints to take charge again.
... what actually locked you into your beliefs that climate change is a hoax.
You will believe in pixie dust.
No belief involved. Just close examination of the evidence.
(If 'climate change' is short for 'catastrophic man-made climate change')
You should try it sometime.
Of course it takes more effort then listening to the BBC or reading the guardian.
>Just close examination of the evidence.
As long as you stick to Alan Watts and similar charlatans.
You haven't examined the evidence; you've scanned friendly blogs for talking points.
it appears that a heretic has managed to secure a prestigious job. This is unacceptable, and we must burn him at the stake to cleanse ourselves of his skeptical filth!!!
Just because Bridenstine is currently a skeptic doesn't mean he won't change his mind when irrefutable proof that mankind is causing or hastening climate change is supplied to him from a credible source. And given the utter certainty of the media that mankind, in particular the western world, is to blame, and knowing well versed in scientific method the average arts graduate reporter is, there is definitely such proof isn't there?
Of course, because people are well known for being rational in the face of evidence that challenges their world view.
Except for all the times when they just double down on their position and label any opposing views heresy/fake news/propaganda/lies/misinformation.
I'm guessing the second option is what will happen here.
Big giveaway, that. Science doesn't deal in proof.
We don't need 'proof' that a particular plane is going to fall out of the sky. If we have evidence that it has a 5% chance of crashing - it won't get off the ground.
Science is telling us that there is a 90% (or better) chance that AGW is happening, now, and is likely to get much worse.
But the deniers are determined to fly that plane till it crashed.
"But the deniers are determined to fly that plane till it crashed."
Meanwhile, on NASA's own website, you can find data showing human civilization has likely had a profound effect on our world's climate.
Well, you don't have to worry about that little detail. Like all of der Lügenführer's minions, he'll make sure that any reference to real facts disappear from the face of the website (being, of course, blissfully unaware that nothing ever really disappears from the Interwebs...)
> "...he'll make sure that any reference to real facts disappear..."
So, like a "Hide the decline" thing?
Well, if it's on a website, it's bound to be true. I've just put on this very website right here that climate change is a natural feature of the planet's ecosystem and the area of space it finds itself in.
So that's true too. Excellent!
>So, like a "Hide the decline" thing?
No. Not like that. A remark which has been investigated (along with other denialist 'gotchas') several times, and cleared of any wrong-doing.
Even the Bright Institute, which set out to discredit Hadley, were forced to admit that their own study of the data came up with the same result.
You, sir are an unoriginal fraud.
I wish I could give you another upthumb for Lügenführer. Then another one for correct use of umlauts. But then I'd have to give you a downthumb for not italicising foreign words. That would still leave two upthumbs, alas I can give you only one.
"cleared of any wrong-doing."
Really? The snippet you quote out of context, describes the manipulation of data to produce the infamous "hockey stick" graph. The proxy measurements declined at the end of the period charted and were then spliced with instrumental records to produce an uplift and "hide the decline" in the proxy record. It was at the very least, bad science. MCIntyre and McKitrick showed that random numbers would produce a hockey stick.
Are you sir, an original fraud?
Science is based on skepticism not dogma. There are problems with models and data sets. The models have not been particularly accurate with historical or current data. A bigger problem is the extent, quality, and completeness of the data sets. The problem is our current data sets do not have any indication of longer term cycles of century and millennia length. Through solar variability (Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age) and the actual human effects are murky.
My personal objection to basing policy on the CAGW is what if it is proven false? Many of the goals can stand on their own right as we should be trying to leave the environment in better shape than we found it. Thus reducing one's carbon foot print, lessening one's overall impact, etc. are good personal objectives.
This issue really revolves around energy, the energy needed to run modern civilization. Like it or not, the vast bulk of that energy comes from carbon burning right now. The greens have no realistic replacement for it, no matter what they may claim. In fact a lot of them don't WANT it replaced. They see modern civilization as a problem to be reined in (except for themselves of course), and so they are drawn very strongly to a theory that suggests our energy supply will lead to catastrophe.
But the universe doesn't care about politics. That theory, based as it is on CO2 being a delicately balanced lever of our climate, turned out to be a less than accurate description of the climate system. At least, all their computer modeling has been shown wanting. It was that modeling that provided (and still provides) the primary underpinning for the theory itself.
Alas and alack, the climate didn't tip over and shows no signs of doing so. Thus out of necessity was born the "climate change" meme, to replace the old theory of a world on fire. This works great, since you won't find anyone to argue that climate doesn't change (I certainly won't!).
So we see how the Green movement has adapted their strategies, successfully saving that CO2 theory from the dustbin, polishing it up good, and presenting it to a new generation of suckers as the explanation for every weather-related disaster that comes along. Since such disasters will never stop coming (while we're here anyway), the Greens are set for life!
I hope he doesn't have a prejudiced opinion on the flat vs round Earth theory. We need to keep an open mind and launch satellites to just collect the data (or crash into the crystal sphere of the heavens)
"The greens have no realistic replacement for it, no matter what they may claim."
We most certainly do have a replacement, a clean power source that will probably see us through to the establishment of space based solar. That replacement is nuclear power and I can assure you that I am not only "Green" who thinks this.
"This issue really revolves around energy, the energy needed to run modern civilization. Like it or not, the vast bulk of that energy comes from carbon burning right now."
if it weren't coming from carbon burning, then you'd STILL see GRIPES from various enviro-wacko groups, along all of the "religious claims" and chicken-little fear mongering that goes with it.
a) Nuclear energy - not a carbon in its footprint, yet NOBODY seems to be asking for more of it. why not?
b) Fusion energy - if we had it working [instead of just working on 'research' - you get what you pay for!] there'd be SOME kind of griping going on about THAT, too.
c) wind farms kill eagles and condors, and take some of the energy out of the wind, affecting "something" if you search hard enough to find it.
d) dams for hydro power flood the landscape and it's no longer "pristine". oh well.
e) black solar panels heat up from solar energy, causing localized "hotter" weather if there are enough of them collecting sunlight in a given area, kinda like the "concrete jungle" effect.
In short, no matter WHAT kind of "sustainability" you have, SOMEONE is going to gripe about it, throw a tantrum, get a bunch of activist types to join their cause, make a CRAPLOAD of noise, and generally disrupt society and try to force EVERYONE (except themselves) into a 3rd world quality of life.
>The models have not been particularly accurate with historical or current data.
You found this 'argument' on a denialist website, didn't you?
Problem is, every proposed climate model is first tried out on historical data. If it doesn't pass that, it's ditched immediately.
> turned out to be a less than accurate description of the climate system.
Only in the minds of those incapable of dealing with reality - that we can't hope to continue with a robber economy forever.
Climate change is real. It's happening now and it shows signs of getting worse, a lot quicker than we feared. Anyone who believes that the 'right' to drive an SUV is more important than our grandchildren's future is a danger to humanity.
>Nuclear energy - not a carbon in its footprint
Good grief! You can't even get that right. There's tonnes of CO2 in nuclear - all that concrete?
The problem is our current data sets do not have any indication of longer term cycles of century and millennia length.
Of course they do. Relatively short-term (centuries and low millenia), you can get quite accurate temperature data from the plant record - things like tree growth rings, pollen composition and distribution, etc. For somewhat longer term (tens to hundreds of thousands of years), and higher elevations/latitudes, you can extract temperature record from the isotopic composition of ice and from stalactites/stalagmites. Even longer term, you get temperature data from isotopic composition of sedimentary rock formations.
As you go further back in time, temporal resolution decreases - first you average over months, then years, then decades and so on; it also gets harder to calibrate the temperature scale, and to establish a continuous temperature record at a given location; you may also have a quite accurate reading of the ocean temperature, but a much more uncertain data on the atmospheric temperatures; and so on.
Sure this is hard work, and it requires a lot of specialized skills and knowledge, and frequently expensive equipment. Occasionally, it is necessary to correct some of the temperature record as new and better data or analysis technique comes along - this is all a part and parcel of the scientific process. Nonetheless, claiming that our knowledge of the Earth's temperature record starts with the invention of the thermometer is just plain ignorant.
>we see how the Green movement has adapted their strategies, successfully saving that CO2 theory from the dustbin, polishing it up good, and presenting it to a new generation of suckers
>In fact a lot of them don't WANT it replaced.
First things first, I agree with you. Many Greens have an entirely different viewpoint on how we should go about living our life (or how many humans should be here) and would love to impose their views on everyone else. I'll add that, as time goes on, I find Greens have outlived their usefulness as canaries as in the coalmine and are massively messing things up when they decide on policy. Witness the mess that $100B+ of electricity subsidies have made to German CO2 emissions actually increasing.
In short, I don't like Greens very much.
What I am curious about, in your version of the "big sell" is why other people, including people who do not share the green viewpoint, are suckered in and go along? Why are they buying into the sell? Especially if the findings are inconvenient and annoying, such as limiting their air travel? These are rational people, able to look at data just as well as yourself.
It's a bit like Holocaust denial (a subject on which debate should _not_ be suppressed). Why did the Germans willingly accept the role of scapegoats? What's in it for them, in this big conspiracy? It might have been imposed on them in 1945, but now??? Occam's razor argues for it actually happening rather a massive cover-up.
Second, let's dig into the oft-repeated argument that climate scientists have a vested argument in promoting spending on climate change research.
But, why is it that very little serious, peer-reviewed science has debunked the AGW alarmists? There would be no lack of funding for someone with solid science to back up that humans are not causing a problem. Any oil company would love to throw money at them (and probably do). Yes, riding the AGW is a gravy train, but credible science against it would make any scientist into a top earner in that field. Take Bjørn Lomborg. He may not be popular (I actually respect his views), but you can't argue that his positions have resulted in professional failure and obscurity. Quite the opposite.
Scientists do often display a herd mentality, make mistakes and block out dissenting views. But science also has in-built mechanisms to correct for that - most scientists are willing to look at data that conflicts with their worldview and adjust. For examples of that, you can look at the early reception for the prion hypothesis in the mad cow disease scare. Or for the notion that bacteria cause stomach ulcers.
Why has that not happened?
Some folks insist on perfect climate science models. Guess what - not gonna happen. Science is most effective when working with either perfect equations (ex: physics), you have masses of standalone data or can repeat the same experiment multiple times. Either your equations are elegant or you can have statistics do the work for you. Faced with a one data-point system - we only have 1 Earth's weather to look at, looking at phenomena that is way beyond simple mathematics and lacking any way to re-run repeatable full-scale experiments, scientists have a fuzzier and harder time proving their hypotheses.
It won't be perfect first time and it might never be perfect at all. It'll be fuzzy, open to interpretation and based on consensus rather than certainties. That shouldn't be too hard to understand, should it?
What I am wondering about, if people like yourself and Bombastic Bob, are reasoning in good faith, is what would it take to change your mind? At what point would you look at the scientific consensus and say "you know what, this is happening, I've changed my mind".
Short of that, at what point would you be willing to say "geez, I dunno, but the risks if I am wrong are pretty big, so I'll just err on the side of caution"?
Is there such a point? More than anything else here, I am curious about that.
For me, I'd love to learn that we were wrong and we can go back to business as usual. CO2 is not a traditional pollutant, it's natural and it is not a toxic chemical. If it turns out not to cause warming, then why not enjoy life and go back to emitting lots of it? I certainly wouldn't mind and I believe that, on other aspects, we are less polluting now than in the 50s.
Very well argued.
I'd love to see a coherent, rational response from Bob or John (or both). I'm not holding my breath...
Seriously? You don't know why more people don't want more nuclear? Maybe it has to do with the radioactive nuclear waste that sticks around for a really long time? Maybe it has to do with safety and the risk of a melt down?
@Aedile "Seriously? You don't know why more people don't want more nuclear? Maybe it has to do with the radioactive nuclear waste that sticks around for a really long time? Maybe it has to do with safety and the risk of a melt down?"
There's never been a long-term waste problem. We had reprocessing from the get-go, and by the time President Ford put a moratorium on it, we had MSR. Now we also have IFR.
It's a political problem, and even in that context it doesn't make sense, since about half of the world's people live in countries that already have nuclear weapons.
If you argue that wind is cheaper, you're forgetting that the timing of emissions matters, and that for 30 years nuclear and large scale hydro were the only technologies up to the task. Both were opposed by greens.
@strum "Climate change is real. It's happening now and it shows signs of getting worse, a lot quicker than we feared. Anyone who believes that the 'right' to drive an SUV is more important than our grandchildren's future is a danger to humanity.
This isn't about SUVs, which make up a piddling proportion of global anthropogenic CO2; it's about the few billion people who don't have the ability to refrigerate their food or get picked up by an ambulance if they're injured. Their development aspirations are a much bigger piece of the CO2 pie than US rednecks driving trucks.
I urge you to look over the policy proposals of US (and to a lesser extent British) environmentalists. If you're honest, what you'll find is that they target certain segments of the population rather than targeting segments that put out the most CO2 or do it most gratuitously.
That's why you had then-Senator Barak Obama blaming industry for CO2 emissions during the 2008 campaign even though US industry only accounted for 20% of our emissions.
@JLV That's one of the most mature and reasonable posts I've seen on this topic. Have an up-vote on me.
This is a bit tardy, but I'll try to answer some of your questions:
"What I am curious about, in your version of the "big sell" is why other people, including people who do not share the green viewpoint, are suckered in and go along? Why are they buying into the sell? Especially if the findings are inconvenient and annoying, such as limiting their air travel? These are rational people, able to look at data just as well as yourself."
- My impression (from working as a Democratic organizer) was that white collar party activists weren't afraid of that, likely because they didn't expect it to happen.
"Some folks insist on perfect climate science models. Guess what - not gonna happen."
- Correct, and it's easy to understand why there are gaps in calibration data before 1970 (nobody was thinking about climate modeling) and why the surface stations didn't get updated immediately (budgets). What's harder to understand is why it took three decades after the consensus formed to get hard numbers about things like shelter and location biases. We're now forty years into this and there are still missing calibration records.
"But, why is it that very little serious, peer-reviewed science has debunked the AGW alarmists? There would be no lack of funding for someone with solid science to back up that humans are not causing a problem."
- You've already answered that. See above. As you summed it:
"It won't be perfect first time and it might never be perfect at all. It'll be fuzzy, open to interpretation and based on consensus rather than certainties."
That also makes it hard to disprove (which is why I'd rather focus on whether particular mitigation proposals make sense).
"Any oil company would love to throw money at them (and probably do). Yes, riding the AGW is a gravy train, but credible science against it would make any scientist into a top earner in that field."
- I think you've giving them too much credit. Look at the Equifax fiasco - wouldn't it have been in their interest to hire the best infosec people and give them the support needed to avoid this? They obviously didn't.
Also, possibly because the people disputing AGW didn't know where to look. They spent decades trying to find mistakes in the math and the theory even though people in academia tend to be very good at both. While they were distracted by that, they missed problems with the instrumentation and test design.
"What I am wondering about, if people like yourself and Bombastic Bob, are reasoning in good faith, is what would it take to change your mind?"
This wasn't directed at me, but I'll offer my answer:
1: Fix the data. I Having problems in a first analysis is normal, but leaving them unfixed indefinitely isn't.
2: Publish the metadata. Right now a lot of it is on password-protected servers. If it's good, there's no reason to hide it. Even if there are gaps, it might still be possible to fill them in as long as the equipment hasn't been thrown away.
3: I'd be willing to act on the Precautionary Principle, but some of the proposed mitigations aren't precautionary. Anything that requires building new supply chains and factories for a small reduction in lifecycle CO2 doesn't make sense at this point.
From that link (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence):
"Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier."
^ This can't be true because Explorer 6 was only active for 60 days, none of them during the spring, and Ladsat didn't launch until 1972.
"The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950."
^ This is based on data from weather stations that weren't designed to measure sub-degree changes. You have a signal that's close to the noise floor (1: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/text/tn404_6.html 2: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pml/wmd/105-6.pdf ) and the investigators didn't use blinds. The reported warming also spiked after those investigators took a political stand (in the 1970s: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming ) and tapered off during the 2000s. That's the pattern you'd expect to see if bias were the main cause.
"All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years."
^ Ditto. The methodology was also changed when recent data showed less warming than expected. (That's non-preferred. See the BAMS analysis of the reproducibility fiasco.)
The proxy indeces are vulnerable to p-hacking because there are lots of potential proxies to choose from, and they weren't pre-registered.
"The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969."
^ This is based on the same data, and is even farther inside the instrumental margin of error.
"Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006"
...out of 684,000 cubic miles, or 0.009% or the total. (I'm being generous. If we use their low estimate, it's only 0.005%.)
"...while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005."
...out of 7.2 million cubic miles, or five ten-thousandths of a percent.
I'm perfectly willing to work on energy-saving technologies (and have done so, actually). I also spent a few years as a Democratic organizer, and I've been a bike commuter for close to 20 years.
My beef is that the policy proposals from US greens don't make engineering sense. At this point, almost nay low-CO2 tech would be worth building, and the feedback loops in the models imply that timing of emissions is as important as total footprint. You won't get anywhere trying to talk to them about that.
The fossil fuel industry is licking their chops at the prospect of burying all the data and denying there is any government-backed research that indicates global warning or problems associated with that. You would think that denying the data ever existed is ridiculous, but you only have to look at the plethora of bald-faced alternate reality statements from the white house and their supporters who insist you should not believe what you see or measure anymore. No, the real truth is that fossil fuels are just peachy, America's problems are due to lazy immoral immigrants, and Putin is a helluva good guy who we really need to get closer to.
at renewable energy, because Exxon knew...that renewable energy wouldn't make a ha'poth of difference to oil consumption, wouldn't really affect coal consumption and would lead to more gas consumption because by and large that's the only viable method of adding dispatch to the appalling travesty of generation that is intermittent renewable energy.
What the fossil industry fears is new fossil competition and nuclear power.
They bought the greens years ago.,
Which is why there is anti-nuclear and anti-fracking, but no one gives a sh1t about bird mincing environment wrecking windmills, or polluting solar panels.
The so called eco solutions business is riddled with contradictions that can only be explained by realising that:-
- the people who know, know that renewable energy doesn't work
- they dont care, because climate change is bollox, and they know that too.
- all that matters is transferring wealth from plebs to the government and big corporate elites.
- by and large people really are that stupid.
- the stupidest person of all is the rote-educated person that thinks they are clever, because they have absorbed other people's wisdom. Or propaganda.
I mean, why do you think all the government and opposition MPs send their kids to private schools?
There is a rigged, three-sided, fake debate between Alarmist Big Warmists....
Luke Little Warmists and Learned NO Warmists.....
"Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami" at FauxScienceSlayer website
> "Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami" at FauxScienceSlayer website
Promoting your crap site again?
Until they read and digest this. Applies to other heated debates as well.
TL;DR version: People are idiots, get over it.
Here are questions to ponder.
What would happen if the sun went out tomorrow?
Would human activity continue to cause global warming?
The answer should be self evident.
A false dichotomy
A straw man
What would happen if the sun went out tomorrow?
Our planet would cool (though there would be residual warmth for a while due to our core providing geothermal energy) and eventually we would end up being a lifeless rock.
What does that have to do with Climate Change though? That's like saying "If the sun doesn't shine on my conservatory, it is cold during the day! Therefore the heaters I have in there can't possibly have an effect on the temperature"
well, as true as it is that humans aren't DIRECTLY warming the earth, the assumptions of the warmist 'CO2' model is kinda like this: CO2 is assumed to be a greenhouse gas; that is, it absorbs incoming energy (as gamma), converting it to heat, and then keep that heat from escaping the earth at night (by radiation).
So, since the sun is still involved in the process when humans [allegedly] cause the warming, having the sun go out tomorrow would be an unrelated problem. That's where that specific logic breaks down.
ON THE OTHER HAND... since the model centers ENTIRELY on the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then I like to focus my arguments on THAT little problem... because CO2 is a *REALLY* *LOUSY* greenhouse gas! It only works for temperatures below about -50F, or above about 130 or 140F, and even THEN, you have to go pretty far outside of the extremes to get 100% absorption.
When the earth emits gamma radiation at night, it's in the infrared range. "Black body radiation" puts out most of its energy at a wavelength that's close to the 'indicated temperature' wavelength, which has a simple calculation. in short, those thermometers you use with lasers in them simply figure out what the IR emission is, and 'guess' the temperature based on that. And they're pretty good.
So in short, if CO2 doesn't really absorb ANY of earth's emitted radiation between -50F and 100-something F, then CO2 isn't doing DIDDLY SQUAT to affect world temperatures, now is it?
Similarly for solar radiation, it may actually have a BLOCKING effect rather than a warming effect [and the ground absorbs the heat way better than the atmosphere does... so it's not that effective at all is it? Consider a cloudy day, for example, and water absorbs nearly ALL of the infrared, hint hint, being 100 or more times as effect ive as a greenhouse gas than CO2, in my opinion]
In any case, what would happen if the sun went out tomorrow? We'd be totally SCREWED.
That's a pretty silly question to ask isn't it? And it has no relevance to the subject under discussion.
When the earth emits gamma radiation at night, it's in the infrared range.
Bob, you are talking gibberish.
If whatever you are doing in real life is based on the same level of knowledge of the subject matter, I fear for the lives of your customers.
"When the earth emits gamma radiation at night, it's in the infrared range"
AC got there before me.
High school physics, Bob.
I honestly didn't realise that was a post by Bob. He never once mentioned the word "micro$haft"...
> CO2 is assumed to be a greenhouse gas
Bollocks. It's been known to be a greenhouse gas for 150 years.
@ David Nash
Likewise, pity it was an AC.
"emits gamma radiation at night, it's in the infrared range" -- I was WTF!
this really proves Bob is a ignorant twat!
Or the dumbest thing posted on this site since the last screed from Bombastic Bob.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018