Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Salon writer Paul Rosenberg has created a gem of an article in which he claims, that the right direction in which to accept climate risks is “180 degrees away from where so-called “common sense” would take you.”
The strange thing is Rosenberg argues this is a good thing – that only by rejecting so called “common sense” can you orient in the “right direction”, to understand and appreciate Lewandowsky’s argument about uncertainty and risk.
As far as I can tell from reading his article, “deniers” are apparently winning the battle for public opinion, because most people can’t perform this impressive feat of mental gymnastics. Only special people (I assume Rosenberg means the sort of people who regularly read his articles), people who understand and appreciate Lewandowsky, can attain the required mental flexibility to utterly reject common sense. Or something like that.
I’m looking forward to Rosenberg writing an article on why black is white, why you should throw a pinch of salt over your shoulder whenever a witch gives you the eye, and why we don’t need all those stinkin observations to do model based science.
Full article:
“One reason global warming opponents still have the upper hand is basic confusion over the nature and significance of uncertainty. “There are numerous instances in which politicians and opinion makers stated that ‘there is still so much uncertainty, we shouldn’t invest money to solve the climate problem,’” Lewandowsky explained to Salon… “This is shown to be wrong by our analysis, because uncertainty can never be too great for action. On the contrary, uncertainty implies that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty.””
This reads like these suckers completely fell for the profit-strategizings of the insurance company faction of the global warming money machine. Increased “uncertainty” means more possible damages. If one can increase rates due to “uncertainty” on a fiduciary basis, such as relying on climate “experts” validating it, even pushing more of it, one can increase revenue more and more. The insurance companies have been pushing “global weirding” and other such uncertainties and new strangeness, because they are not reliant on actual warming alone as factors to increase rates. They just need some “experts” to cover for them with something sounding scientific. Lewandowsky, I believe, does not know he is talking “insurance talk.” Also, the writer, by say “global warming” from the get go, is a total amateur. The “uncertainty” code word for increased profits (which I don’t think Lew. gets) is much more than “warming.” It is “weriding,” “cooling”, everything, all the pains the latest jargon imply. Also again, the writer is an amateur because he does not see, regardless of any opinions about science, that Lew’s “Recursive Fury” paper reads as if he is having a mental breakdown.
So he wants us to ignore “common sense” and the fact that NONE of the IPCC models have ever predicted anything correctly. (Start Sarcasm) OK everyone ignore common sense and send me $100 or better yet $1,000, you know that throwing money at some guy is crazy, but ignore that so you can you orient in the “right direction”. Do it for the children !!!!
As a comparison, note the IPCC reports do not revel in increased “uncertainty.” Do they ever use such language? The UN Carbon Development Mechanism does not profit by having their scientific arm proclaim “uncertainty.” They just need a nice 3degree mid-target in the range of model projections for warming to try to carry a stable price for offsets. Lewandowsky’s “uncertainty” talk is peculiarly an emanation of insurance company financial interests within the current climate “crisis” discourse.
Just the other day, there was an article in Salon about cell phones and electromagnetic fields in general causing cancer. A real bastion of science, that rag is.
“Deniers” believe in conspiracy theories, says the psychologist who thinks all “deniers” are part of some secretive cult funded by “big oil.” When is that guy going to crawl back under the rock?
He actually says that uncertainty is more important than facts when it comes to science. Stop feeding this pigeon, he isn’t worth bringing to the day light.
“But the growing sophistication of the scientific community is a cause for continued hope — if they can accelerate their learning curve, and follow the right path. They no longer mistakenly assume that the facts can “speak for themselves,” and they’ve gotten much better at developing ways to communicate lucidly about complex challenges and uncertainty.”
This age has finally taken liberalism (or what passes for it) via reductio ad absurdum to its ultimate destination: societal insanity.
SOO WRONG
These nut jobs who believe in co2 will change thhings tomrow the next day and the next
But they just keep getting more dire
WHY? Ok so burn all fossil fuels today its 0.8% or 800 ppm thats if man kind burned all oil reserves know to man today.
So we have had as much as 5000 to 1500 ppm in the past when life on earth made land and flourished
But the TV tells me we burn all of the reserves know to man (this was on Bill Moyers few seconds ago for me) prob was a recording.
Today’s %399.47ppm
Today’s 0.0399%
ok so lets say today ).004% is present co2 levels or 400 ppm
Burn all today is 0.08% or 800 ppm
Life Flourished on Earth at 15-20 times today’s levels went from nothing on land to plants then animals
15 x 800 = 12,000 ppm
20 x 800 ppm = 16,000 ppm
Yet the climate ologists or the news says if we burn all know today we go into run away heating?
at what level 800 ppm?
Wait you just said life made land fall 16,000 ppm for plants 20,000-15,000 ppm for animals?
And you say there is a problem why????????????
drunk someone check my math on last post start was bad i think
A Solon article quote cuts to the issue for me: “The reason ‘consensus’ has not appeared to work in society at large to date isn’t because it’s ineffective — it’s because there is a well-funded countermovement out there that takes every opportunity to mislead the public into thinking that there isn’t a consensus[.]”
Unfortunately, the vast majority (95%+?) of adults do not have the educational background to evaluate the scientific, statistical and computer modeling issues to independently reach an informed opinion on “CAGW: yes or no”. Previously, society tended to rely on the alleged perception of scientific group consensus (the experts).
However, Solon (nor the IPCC) never address head-on the fact there has been no warming for 17+ years; a time-frame warmists previously stated was statistically significant. Mother Nature’s data is now front and center in the CAGW public debate, and the concocted 97% consensus argument is rapidly losing credibility (as, I believe, is all of science).
A population with high unemployment, cancelled or expensive health insurance, declining real incomes, never-ending foreign wars and their college graduate kids living in the basement have a lot to distract them, but sooner or later Mother Nature will win this argument.
When the likelihood of being in a car crash, his solution would be ban all cars. Obviously any severe climate change and not caused by human activities, there is little we can do but adapt.
They are slowly backing down, and moderating their early hypotheses. Well Australia is not having it. And roll on July 1st when the renewed senate will have some sway on carbon tax repeal. But – there are a few things that are not popular at present and this is increase the age pension to 70 years. And giving parental leave and payments to women who earn $100 k plus a year. This is a stumbling block. Personally speaking, a professional woman who earns this much would likely not give up work to have a child or do it without any government welfare scheme to assist her.
oops 20k ppm for plants 15-20 k ppm for animals
k = 1,000
so where is the problem?
if it is 800 ppm or 0.08%?
drunken math is bad thing why i dont drink often
8,000 ppm for plants
8,000 to 6000 ppm for animals
DOH oh 400 todays ppm x 15 or 20 x
DOH
ok im not only dumb arse co2 nuts r worse still
they say at 800 ppm we ALL DIE
what???…on BILL MOYERS ON PBS just now?
noooo !!! stop making dumb people wrong quests wrong experts please stop the insanity !!!
Well he got the bit about uncertainty right: the models are uncertain, the paleoclimate reconstructions are uncertain, the supposedly observed empirical effects (like flood, famine and fire) of CAGW are uncertain, even the arguments from expert opinion are uncertain. The whole thing is just one massive pile of conjecture.
…… that turned out to be wrong.
I noticed a long time ago that many academics were devoid of common sense, but I had no idea that they sought to rid themselves of it on purpose. I guess when you think you’re special, you don’t want to associate with anything considered “common.” I plan to hang on to what little common sense I have. It took me years to develop it, and it has saved me from falling for scams that I would sometimes fall victim to when I was young. My common sense tingles whenever these alarmists tell us to “trust the science” or “trust the consensus.” It’s just another way of insisting that we trust them to interpret the science for us because they have some snake oil they want to sell us.
Interesting that both Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman based their insights in physics on thought experiments in which they tried to visualize how the physical world works–a process strikes me as applying common sense.
You have only to read Feynman’s lectures and Einstein’s 1905 paper on estimating Avogadro’s number to see how they applied common sense to problems in science.
Read Lawson’s 1916 translation of Einstein’s popular book on the theory of special relativity. (Title: Relativity: The Special and General Theory) Today we would use a space ship rather than a train to illustrate the theory, but apart from that, you can see that Einstein based his analysis on common sense.
The notion that science is so abstruse that you have to suspend common sense or to oppose common sense is a nonsensical mystical approach to science.
Of course some discoveries are surprising an counter-intuitive, but these discoveries are mostly new facts rather than new theories. When a fact seems opposed to common sense, then according to Feynman we should review the theory, not adjust the fact to fit the theory.
By his essay, Paul Rosenberg displays a romantic view of science that has little relation to how scientists actually work, unless of course they are second-rate or out-and-out hacks.
By his logic we should be preparing for alien invasion with all earnestness. I can’t think of anything we’re less certain of than whether we’re alone or not. The risk is off the scale horrendous end of the world catastrophic consequences to our inaction in preparing for alien invasion. LOL.
Ian, how’s the head this morning?
That little lot made me laugh out loud!!
I think therefore I am not……
still little drunk from lunch with contractor friend
But glad i made someone besides me laugh hehe
Ok he is lil more solber 5 hours after 4 drinks
Why Co2 is BS in 5 data sets
1 – “Co2 Today is 400 ppm or 0.04%”
30,000 ppm is health and safety code limits for co2 30 min standard safe wont pass out from not enough o2 basiclly
2 – “Plants made land at 8,000 ppm 20x todays lvl”
3 – “Animals made land fall 8,000 ppm to 6,000 ppm”
4- “Ice Ages can occur even at 2,000 to 8,000 ppm? 450 mil years ago today?”
5 – “Burn all oil today we get 800 ppm or 0.08%”
But wait we had ice ages at 3 to 10 time that?
no way u are fucking with me right?
Sorry no your wrong we are right you all suck….. “no” global BS
Take your global warming, …stick it up your solar powered arse hole !!!
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/
Check SkepitcalScience.com the place where the COO@ur momisugly nuts look
Link here for future nuts
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
They will say well yes that is true but the sun was dimmer and the water in the ocean was colder we know from ocean sediment layers.
OK and our Sun (closest Star) is really inactive now but you say I should be afraid “VERY AFRAID” noo u can not have it both ways dumbies?
My favorite Burt Rutan on Global Warming
“An Engineers views of Climate Science”
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
CO2 Nears 400 ppm – Relax! It’s Not Global Warming ‘End Times’ — But Only A ‘Big Yawn’ –…
http://www.climatedepot.com
Like · · Promote · Share
In computers we have “fuzzy logic”.
In climate we have “fuzzy science”.
Sure, why not.
That was actualy from a facebook rant 1 hour ago once i was lil more solber
the I had to say ohh by the way
nd our sun currently going in a cold spell but I should worry? what? and they will say no its in a hot spell>
WAIT they are wrong…why he are in a solar maximum that is not total output
that is after a 7-11 year polar magnetic polar shift yes it is at a maximum BUT IT IS STILL ALMOST NO SUN SPOTS AND WAY THE F COLD ATM
The Sun controls tem,p on EARTH Period mother FUckers
The ocean and poles are the regulators keeps temps in check and even
yes it goes up and down with solar output and max and min and NOT BY CO2
I checked it out I knew it before I got all tghe lil perfect stats. yes it is BS even the debunkers step on their own BS when they says well su was colder what no ……!!!…now they want totalk about the SUN??
Thier computer models do not calculate the Suns min and maximums at all……ugh people suck …oops “Dumb” people Suck” they make more dumb people
95% of people are dumb
People who believe in global warming 95%
Scientists who believe in global warming 75%
Then I said ….
oh astro physicists who believe in global warming even less
Solar physicists they will say off the record or on? JK
Less for solar Physicists maybe 25% think co2 is a prob
they they dumb ones
[Left as submitted. Mod]
When educated people go crazy and become fixated on some “supremely important idea” they almost always begin to produce a “push of jargon” that excites them and so is self-reinforcing. When talking to such a person for the first time it may take a while to realize that person is a loony because they still retain the appearance and manners that make a good first impression. And you may even, at first, blame yourself for not understanding what they are talking about.
Eugene WR Gallun
Jtom says:
April 27, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Ian Bach, perhaps you will appreciate this: Exhaled air is about 42,000 ppm. We should all pledge not to ‘poison’ any AGW believers by giving them CPR should the need be indicated.
OSHA is 30,000 ppm for 30 mins but that is workplace. I think Burt Rutan mentions at what level Apollo 13 went as high before the made the fix for it. He also mentions what level you pass out at
I think i have heard at some lvl the oxygen wont be adsorbed well enough by the lungs even if was at normal levels for oxygen i think it is 17-21% is normal
This impressive feat of advanced reasoning is what George Orwell called doublethink.
Like I have said before many a-times, hippies used to shout “Don’t believe the man”. Now that they’re in charge, they drive around Priuses and Leafs with bumper stickers that read: “Don’t believe everything you think.”
Leftist filth.