By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Gore Effect has struck again. Al Baby recently visited Canberra accompanied by his usual blizzard to try to convince the tiny band of eccentrics that held the balance of power in the Senate to vote to keep the “carbon” tax that has been pointlessly crippling the Australian economy.
He failed. The Senate upheld the vote in the House to bring the doomed CO2 tax to a timely end. The Australian Labor Party, which had unwisely introduced the hated tax for the sake of clinging on to office for a few more months with the support of the now-decimated Greens, is belatedly trying to whip up support from a skeptical nation for a repeal of the repeal.
Bob Carter, whose measured, eloquent and authoritative lectures all over Australia putting the minuscule global warming of the 20th century into the calming perspective of geological time helped to see off the tax, sends me the following image that the ALP are desperately circulating to their fanatical but dismayed supporters.
The propaganda graphic was accompanied by the usual mawkishly syrupy message from the Labor loonies to useful idiots everywhere:
“Just hours ago, Tony Abbott made Australia the only country in the world to reverse action on climate change.
“Not satisfied with hurting Australians through his cruel Budget, he’s now hurting future generations.
“Labor fought hard to put a price on carbon, and Labor fought hard to move to an emissions trading scheme. Through our climate action policies, investments in renewable energy topped $18 billion and 24,000 jobs in the sector were created. Houses with rooftop solar increased to 2.1 million, and wind-generated energy tripled.
“The Abbott Government and the crossbench in the Senate have taken a wrecking ball to Labor’s action on climate change.
“Let’s show Tony Abbott that we won’t stand for this. We will not give up the fight to securing a clean energy future for our children.”
The Prime Minister’s supporters have not been slow to respond. In no time, they were circulating the following take on the message.
Meanwhile, the tourist postcard industry has not been slow to sense the opportunity for combining celebration of the demise of the tax with some hearty Australian humor. Enjoy!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
philjourdan says:
July 23, 2014 at 5:27 am
@davidmhoffer
John Carter;
Ultimately Climate Change is not a data driven issue, by the way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ROFLMAO, gasping for breath, tears rolling down cheeks, might lose consciousness…
Actually he is being honest for once. To him it is a matter of faith, not science.
And
philjourdan says:
July 23, 2014 at 5:20 am
@John Carter – no a fool of yourself. You may believe anything you want. But in a debate/argument/discussion, you have to REPOND to what is written. You have failed to do so at every turn. So much so that I have stopped reading your responses. I really do not care if you believe in sky dragons and unicorns. But the only thing you are convincing others of is that you are either dishonest or severely disabled in your reading comprehension.
Again, keep your faith. But do not pretend you are in a discussion or you are doing anything other than making yourself look foolish.
Regardless of the science of the matter, the fact the personal attacks, are, again, unwarranted. Putting it mildly.
It’s also not a matter of faith, but quite the opposite: I try to explain as best as I can in the comment above. If you are being legitimate about the discussion thing, please consider it. If you aren’t, and it is really just another way to attack me, then I guess it doesn’t matter. There is a huge pattern with finding ways to take issue with anything I write, by nearly any way possible, I can assure you of that, and it is obvious to any objective observer, outside of this site. (It is also not discussion.)
I can’t respond to everything Phil. It is one person, I have other things to do, with all sorts of people here pilling on, who have enormous amounts of help from others, and who themselves only have to respond to one person. To say I don’t respond is extremely misleading, and unfair. (Though fair doesn’t seem to be the word that would describe most of the comments in response to mine.)
I suggest, quite strongly, that my main substantive points have not been responded to. Variations on the idea that Climate Change means an immediate response to an increase in GG gases (which is not what CC is), or that CC means the earth has to warm in a unit by unit increase, without the large and fairly unpredictable volatility that is part of climate in general, and would even far more likely be part of a geologically radical shift, upon an otherwise (relatively) stable system, in total re radiated atmospheric energy, is not really a response.
Nor, of course, is all the name calling and other overly pejorative stuff: Let alone this comment that past hysterically assumes agreement that moving from fossil fuels, the very thing George W. Bush called us “addicted to” (SOTA, 2006), let alone in the most efficient, market oriented way possible, and specifically raising funds in the process to again specifically help businesses and workers in transition, as well as again specifically the poor who might be unduly burdened, and let alone that replacing energy with better energy is not ending energy, and let alone that volatile weather has helped lead to massive and statistically unusual flooding In Europe and Asia that has caused 10,000s of deaths, and which is consistent (whether caused by or not) with climate scientists’ calls that radical atmospheric GG increases would lead to increasingly volatile and intense weather patterns and precipitation events, is not only bad, but “cruel and despicable.” No one even pointed out the wild illogic of this.
You call that reasonable?
Regarding more civil substantive response, repeatedly arguing about whether the last 100 years of warming have occurred once, never, three times, etc., over the last 100-1000 plus such periods, is also not proof that CC is not having an affect right now: The fact that the climate could be changing on its own this way (statistically unlikely as that is) is not proof that CC does not exist, and not even very good evidence that it probably doesn’t – but just theoretical evidence for the idea that in theory, “it could” have, anyway, though we are seeing the general pattern we would expect, and which, on its own, was statistically very unlikely to have happened.
If the discussion here on this site could be focused on, in response to my comments, the points I make and showing where the basic points are in error or misplaced (or that other option, agreeing with them or taking issue in part), and that mean that CC is something other than what I suggest, rather than constant attacks on me and my comments in nearly every form imaginable, then it would be more of a discussion.
(Lord Monckton, though I disagree with all of his posts, and believe he has misconstrued mine in some key respects, it seems is the only one discussing, and I respect that.)
@John Carter – no one has misconstrued your points. You have the faith of your beliefs, but not the knowledge, so you have articulated them poorly. And personal attacks? Claiming that this issue is faith to you is an observation, not an attack. YOU SAID it was not data driven. If it is not data driven, then it is faith based. That is why religion is not science and science is not religion.
I will be honest. I did not read your whole diatribe. I told you I do not read your posts because you do not respond to the questions or points raised. I do not need a sermon. I get those from the Priest on Sundays. And until you respond to the questions and points made, I see no point wasting time reading your long soliloquies that are rambling and non-factual.
So again, if you want a discussion, answer the questions. An answer of “I don’t know” is still an answer. But when you answer “I don’t know” you cannot say that everyone giving you an answer is wrong – because you have admitted you do not know the answer!
John Carter says:
…scientists also, understandably, look to data; and should, as part of our understanding. Unfortunately here we’re not trying to understand CC after the fact — which is when the issue becomes data determinative — but understand it before the fact, so we know what most sensibly to do (if, in theory, anything), in response. [my emphasis]
John Carter, you are a lot of things. But you are no scientist. If you were, you would not make ridiculous and unsupportable statements like this:
Ultimately Climate Change is not a data driven issue, by the way.
Without testable, verifiable measurements, there is no science. It’s that simple. Without data, we’re back to witch doctors.
Next:
To those who don’t want to believe anything other than CC does not pose a significant threat…
Since you are unable to post any scientific evidence showing that a “significant threat” is occurring, your assertion means nothing. If climate change poses a significant threat, why is there no evidence of any threat? Rational folks don’t ‘believe’ in something for which there is zero evidence.
Finally, despite your protests it is a fact that you don’t answer questions. Your last two posts were rambling nonsense. If you want to start answering, then answer Willis’ comments above. Why are you so willing to condemn poor folks to permanent poverty, based on your “what if” beliefs? You really do come across as a heartless scoundrel.
This is your chance to answer. Don’t blow it, like you have everything else.
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 23, 2014 at 4:35 pm Please understand that I don’t think that you are a bad person for your support of a plan that inevitably harms, impoverishes, and even kills poor people, and is doing so today as we speak.
I think you haven’t thought it through.
Willis,
Thanks for clarifying that a little.
Labeling me a bad person or anything in that category for my earnest belief about a reasonable threat we all face or may face, is ridiculous, and evincive of the idea that people are not entitled to their own perspectives on real issues when they don’t agree with someone else’s, whether it be a minority perspective (here) the majority (most climate scientists), or the state (where it becomes fascism).
I’m taking issue here with the arguments and rationales being offered, and trying to give another view on what the issue is, one that doesn’t seem to be considered here, but that reflects the concern I have and that I think most scientists who have studied the issue and thought deeply about it, also have; and what I suggest, though it hasn’t been so well articulated in a world that keeps conflating weather with climate, and current climate (whatever it is) with climate change, is the real CC problem. And most “disparagement” of climate change refutation is in fact taking issue with the characterization of the climate change issue, as well as the arguments and rationales. When it comes to calling all climate change refuters deceitful (which I think is both erroneous and counter productive and further needlessly polarizes us all and trivializes others), as some people who are very concerned about the issue have done, I generally argue against that, unless something specifically has been.
That aside, I agree that we see it differently.
I don’t think the plan harms and impoverishes and even kills poor people. And I think that response is a little extreme. Particularly given what weather is doing right now, the threats it poses, and the lives lost to cancer and other diseases as well as decreased health just to pollution alone, from things that cause us harm but that we can’t as directly see.
I do, more importantly, think relying on modes of production and energy sources that do us great harm in the short and long run —- (most of the health affects, on everybody, for instance, of air pollution, in a world where we have super scientific biological knowledge yet take disease as almost the normal state – and to which coal btw adds tremendously, as well as to why what is possibly the healthiest protein source on the planet now has be carefully monitored and restricted due to a long standing neurological toxin at all doses), and that is harmful to the rich and to the poor, just maybe not the short term interests of very wealthy industries that have come to rely upon, if understandably, the huge hidden public subsidization in the form of massive but often hidden external effect — is far, far more damaging to the poor, and to everybody. But particularly the poor in low lying countries, and also potentially drought ridden areas. A lot of the poor in Australia, for instance, where whether just coincidental (at this point) but strategically very unusual water (and all over the place temperature patterns, i.e. – volatility) patterns, have hit farmers really hard.
Also, the idea that because something “may” not happen (and climate is already changing, and, see above comment, it is very unlikely to be mere statistical coincidence) but yet presents an enormous threat to mankind, isn’t really, I suggest, a sound reason to not consider sensible means of redressing it.
I also think that the climate impact is likely to ultimately be very significant. (Some say it’s getting somewhat significant now, in terms of just measurable hard costs, and hardship to the poor due to extreme weather events and increased drought patters off statistical norms; but that’s hard to isolate out.)
Yet, though I think the issue is huge and presents a significant threat to us all and for some people to be scared of it, for them, is reasonable; the argument for sensible response isn’t one of alarmism, but one that is strategic. It is due to the fact (or based on the idea, if you like), that many of these processes need to be changed and improved anyway (though agriculture presents some real problems, but also many areas for simultaneous improvement) and, more importantly, that the chance of the ultimate climate shift being high is reasonable (to high), and the damage of that affect significant enough – that not acting is not only unwise, but extremely so, and extremely against our interests. Even if the chances were lower than I assess, it would still be extremely against our interests, in terms of the ranges and probabilities of harm, times what that harm (or harm within each range) would entail.
By the way, drought may threaten the poor the most, just based upon the generally expected (and so far even seen a little already), increase in precipitation volatility (longer periods on average between intense events, with far more lost to runoff than thus soil and root absorption) and likely regional changes; which for everybody, but particularly the poor, is often problematic, since they can’t just get up and go.
But it could also be greatly exacerbated if there was a net reduction in precipitation as well. Just about the only well qualified atmospheric physicist who specifically doesn’t think the issue is that big of a deal is Richard Lindzen, who I think has not thought it through. (And likes to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. I think he also famously went against the idea that cigarette smoking was connected to lung cancer.)
His latest theory is (or was, I think he’s backed off it) that the sky would open up like the “iris” of an eye, losing cloud cover, sufficient to allow enough extra radiation to emit through in the absence of long term average ambient water vapor. Most atmospheric physicists have rejected this idea, and what little short term data there has been since is apparently inconsistent with it even as just a lesser, but significant effect. (To the extent Lindzen proposed it, it also strongly seems an ill though out and somewhat self contradictory idea as well.)
In part the water vapor issue is a conjecture. But water molecule levels in the air serve to both cool – albedo up – and retain heat energy – heat re-radiation up. The heat re-radiation effect, I think, may be dominant (and what seems to be the general view. though we don’t really know), or at least comparable, since it is day and night both, whereby albedo is just day. And if it is less dominant (far less water vapor for both day and night time re radiating is present, sufficient to offset the earth heat increasing affect of greatly lower overall albedo from lack of atmospheric water vapor and clouds), then the loss of rainfall — the key, and absolutely critical, limiting factor in plant [food] growth, unless artificially irrigated (which still requires sources of that water, which is already a problem in many areas of the world) — becomes especially problematic. Even more so in likely combination with more volatile precipitation patterns. And particularly for the world’s poor; and in a major, major, way.
As for energy, I believe that keeping the prices of the most long term damaging fuels artificially low in comparison to other possible methods and productions of energy that could be implemented or developed, is not helping anybody in the long run (but for I suppose those industries entrenched in the pattern) and is quashing any real change to what we are capable of in terms of better means of energy, and we are doing far more harm, without real market motivation and reward relative to other energy means. ( I also think cheap energy, if it is also harmful or having external affects that aren’t integrated into its price, only prompts and then perpetuates and reinforces enormous inefficiencies and inefficient patterns; and I also think motivating the market toward better energy development, rather than just throwing government money at it rather than what really drives innovation, will keep energy a lot less expensive in the long run, as well, and probably, more importantly, provide more jobs, not less.)
But again, I think the issue of how to redress the problem of Climate Change most sensibly is completely separate from an objective examination of just what Climate Change is, and the climatic related threats it presents, and I believe the two may be somewhat heavily conflated here.
Wrong word, in comment just posted, typed out strategically where meant statistically.
“A lot of the poor in Australia, for instance, where whether just coincidental (at this point) but statistically very unusual water (and all over the place temperature patterns, i.e. – volatility) patterns, have hit farmers really hard.”
John, nothing measurable has happened after almost 30 years of bullshitting about AGW/CAGW and a half-doubling (mathematically speaking) of the purported negative effects due to CO2 going from 280 to 400ppm. Why do you think that the next half-doubling is going to be any different, given that any number multiplied by zero = zero?
If you could show some parameter where there’s been a real quantifiable effect (which you were asked repeatedly to do, but couldn’t), then I’m sure there would be some discussion with you about where that might lead but, as it stands, it’s pretty clear that you, not being a scientist, have no idea what you don’t know, even though you should by now.
I tuned out when you quoted Marcott et al. as an accurate reflection of the temperature record. It’s an accurate reflection of the level of scientific fraud to which your heroes will stoop to con useful, clueless, pretend-scientific idiots like you.
Sorry if the truth hurts.
John Carter’s latest long rant is a bunch of free-association mental confusion. He can’t keep a coherent thought in his head before he launches into another, unrelated burst of anti-science. He still has not answered Willis’ point: that by supporting climate alarmism, poor people are seriously hurt, and some starve. Carter does not care in the least if the poor housewife has to pay her skyrocketing gasoline and utility costs. Rather, Carter just emits his usual emotional nonsense, trying to justify his “carbon” scare. He really is heartless.
Carter also opines about Prof Richard Lindzen, the internationally esteemed climatologist who heads M.I.T.’s atmospheric sciences department…
…Richard Lindzen, who I think has not thought it through….
Here is Prof Lindzen’s C.V. It lists twenty dozen peer reviewed papers. Prof Lindzen’s accomplishments makes Michael mann look like a grade school tyke. Yet, Mr Carter presumes himself to be qualified to judge Lindzen’s work. As if.
I challenge Carter to post his own C.V. — if he even has one. If he refuses, that means he is probably just a high school graduate, if that, with no training in the hard sciences. From his comments, that is certainly the impression he gives. Prove me wrong, Carter. Post your C.V.
It is tiring dealing with an unqualified blowhard like Carter. He could learn, if he wanted to. But he prefers to parrot the nonsense he reads at alarmist blogs. It is obvious he is totally unschooled in science. Worse, if adopted, his position would certainly cause death and misery today, in the forlorn hope of heading off some vague, nebulous ‘climate threat’ far in the future, and for which there is exactly zero real world evidence today.
It is scary that people like Carter are allowed to vote. That goes a long way toward explaining why the world is in such a miserable state. We can thank scientifically ignorant folks like John Carter for that.
John Carter,
Climate is always changing. This interglacial is already 11,500 years old. You don’t think its going to last forever do you?
Approx. 14,000 years ago Calgary was under a couple of miles of ice.
14,000 years from now, Calgary will likely be back under a mile of ice. So much for CAGW and so much for CO2 hysteria.
Here’s an offer. Provide Anthony with a genuine mailing address.
I’ll provide the funds for him to send you a copy of this book. You need it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0984782915/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d2_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0E43C509M57M5Z6VXEEP&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1688200382&pf_rd_i=507846
Lewis P Buckingham says:
…the Null Hypothesis still stands, the warming is natural.
Exactly right. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. It is a corollary of the Scientific Method, and to ignore it is to ignore basic science.
Global warming is natural. There is no measurable evidence to the contrary.
dbstealey says:
July 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm
You are not discussing, or anything near discussion. You have exhibited, in this and in particular the other, subsequent thread I wrote several comments on, such vitriole, such name calling, such constant misconstruction and misrepresentations, all you really want to do is discredit anything I write.
These are comments on a forum, not scientific papers. Yet you will take out any sentence, any paragraph, any idea, that you didn’t follow, or that wasn’t perfectly written, and then turn that into the issue. For a while you turned the fact that I (stupidly, not knowing the depths of your ability and willingness to take anything completely out of context and then continue to get increasingly hysterical about it) asked for a link regarding 10 year temperature swings into a series of wildly self centered comments and assertions that my whole theory was now worthless, when it had nothing to do with my theory; but that didn’t change no matter how many times I pointed that out (as I have in several of the earlier comments above.)
dbstealey writes:
then answer Willis’ comments above. Why are you so willing to condemn poor folks to permanent poverty, based on your “what if” beliefs?
This is extremely manipulative, but the question is whether you even realize it.
So someone asks you why you want to harm little children, because maybe (though probably more reasonably than from simply moving to better and less harmful energy sources) future flooding as a result of far more volatile and intense weather (already showing up a little), not to mention starvation from drought, will harm children.
Then postulates that as your goal, which in a way is a pretty wicked thing to do to somebody, as it is either deceitful, or worse, and then asks “why do you want to harm little children.”
When you don’t want to harm little children. You just believe (I presume) or want greatly to believe and so do believe, that CC is not a big deal. That the flooding we’ve already seen that is statistically unusual, is also completely “coincidental,” and that CC — which is not an immediate response to more re radiated heat, but a shifting response over time as energy accumulates in the earth/lower atmosphere system (oceans have warmed, permafrost regions have increased in temperature even more than the ambient air, etc. net polar, and sea ice has been increasingly melting) — won’t in the future lead to more volatile and intense precipitation weather patterns and events such as terrible flooding, or bad drought, etc.
You can believe that, it doesn’t mean you want to hurt children. So it would be highly manipulative for someone to write “you don’t answer questions.” Which is what you did again. (As if I’m being paid to answer all your questions and not giving of my time as it is for nothing in return but mainly grief, and IF I saw it, IF I had time, and it was not just attacking again or trying to turn the CC change issue into something it’s not, I’d try to respond.) And then add. “So answer this one, why do you want to harm children.”
It’s incredibly manipulative, and posits a completely false pretense. And it’s the same as what you just did above. (Your logic may even be more misplaced, since probably most non ideological economists don’t believe that switching to more, broader, and cleaner (not just CC related) energy sources “condemns poor people to permanent poverty,” and that the notion is somewhat far fetched.)
Every one of your comments in response to me, in total, illustrates this more general tendency, since you have attacked, misrepresented, misconstrued, and disparaged in nearly every way imaginable.
I can only think that you work for or all being paid by the oil or coal industry, or (maybe and), that on some level you are experiencing serious cognitive dissonance (the same idea you keep projecting out in your comments) and don’t want to consider anything I’ve written because you think on some level it may make some sense, or at least some of it; and so cling, like to a life raft, to the idea that because climate is not what we would consider unacceptable or out of control right now, that CC as a legitimate risk range of serious threats, therefore can’t be real, or even a reasonable assessment.
And now I’m gonna get more of your excellent pop psychology back and more name calling, right? I mean, if I’m an idiot, why do you spend the bulk of your day (wherever I have posted, there appears dbstealey, with the ongoing and sometimes pretty vile name calling disparagement and near constant misconstruction and misrepresentation of my comments), attacking and disparaging me? I’m not a particularly good writer, that should be evident. So if my posts are the nonsense that you (when you’re being relatively “nice,” and not vile) say they are, why all the constant disparaging. C.D.; fervent belief that you are confusing for reason (and thus why, ironically, you also constantly accuse me of being impervious to reason when I just don’t buy your reasoning, and I’ve repeatedly, and reasonably, told you why); oil/coal industry employ, or all?
dbstealey says:
July 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Regarding the rest of your comment just above, you write,
John Carter, you are a lot of things. But you are no scientist. If you were, you would not make ridiculous and unsupportable statements like this:
Without testable, verifiable measurements, there is no science. It’s that simple. Without data, we’re back to witch doctors.
Again, on data (rhetorical question, since you’re not willing to discuss, which parts do you specifically disagree with, and why, which parts — as again, it’s a comment, not a long scientific article — did you not understand.. The measurements and observation are the observations and measurements of geologically radically altered long lived GG gas levels. This is a lot of science, and incorporates not just global atmosphere analysis, but some sort of loosely attempted reconstruction of past geologic history, which has involved an enormous amount of science. Not exactly witch doctor stuff.
You just want to only label data that which proves what the affect is, when that is but one small part of the data. Also, the only way data can prove it, is after the fact, which belies the entire point. And means you don’t understand the issue, are unwilling to try to understand the issue, or simply don’t want to. And instead of trying to, since you don’t understand it or don’t want to, you try to come up with more and more ways to attack me. Particularly in some of the other comments you’ve posted.
As far as current data goes, it is also supportive. You then confuse, or want to confuse, this with the mistaken notion that if there is a large climate affect, that we could chart and predict it precisely. In advance. Rather than just expect climate over time to shift with a lot of volatility. And which is generally what we’ve seen; and tried, gathering more data as we go, to increasingly model it to try to add some more concrete framework.
That framework, is not the problem. It is an attempt to capture and quantify the problem; Something that is hard to do. Exceedingly hard to do when it comes to climate; and even more so in terms of the volatility that may increase in terms of something that over time, would tend to shift and change the longer term climate. Yet you confuse that (on purpose?) with whether the phenomenon itself exists, or can be known with some degree of reasonableness as presenting a risk range. Which is, ultimately, what the whole Climate Change issue/challenge is.
You then immediately quote me again and write
Since you are unable to post any scientific evidence showing that a “significant threat” is occurring, your assertion means nothing. If climate change poses a significant threat, why is there no evidence of any threat? Rational folks don’t ‘believe’ in something for which there is zero evidence.
If it’s a threat it’s not occurring, it’s in the future. You are again conflating the ultimate results of any long term CC affect, with any ability to have any insight into it beforehand.
You also confuse evidence with proof, as from the geologic record of gg levels, to basic atmospheric dynamics (molecular absorption and re radiation of surface emitted radiation), to past geologic conditions, to consistent ice melt to permafrost temperature to net ocean change, to now 100 plus years of accumulated ambient temperature changes — plus the most remarkable one of all, a multi million year, geologically super fast, increase (or I should say increase to levels not seen in several millions of years) – much of it in the past 50 years alone – in the concentration of the same long lived gases, that in only very small numbers, capture and re radiate enough surface heat to keep the planet ultimatelyabout 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be in its absence — there is a lot of evidencee, and has been for a while, by which to articulate a sound scientific theory and risk assessment. (Theory doesn’t mean speculation, by the way.) But “Zero” – your word above – to you. Who needs (or pretends to need) proof of the CC result, before any of it, to you, is real. It’s a logic trick: If the threat is future, but we can see some signs of change now but would have no way of isolating those out from what “could have happened,” no matter how statistically unlikely that would have been otherwise, then since we have not seen the future itself – the only possible way to prove this – “there thus can be no threat.” And, of course, by definition, no evidence of it.
Whether you did all this above on purpose or don’t realize it – from the responses back – it really doesn’t matter, it’s ultimately the same thing by this point. You will also write anything that sounds good or disparages me in nearly any way possible, so there’s really NO point in discussing with you.
Dammit, sorry. Format edited, To Eds – if you catch this before the above comment posts, you can just replace it. Thanks.
dbstealey says:
July 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Regarding the rest of your comment just above, you write,
John Carter, you are a lot of things. But you are no scientist. If you were, you would not make ridiculous and unsupportable statements like this:
Without testable, verifiable measurements, there is no science. It’s that simple. Without data, we’re back to witch doctors.
‘
Again, on data (rhetorical question, since you’re not willing to discuss, which parts do you specifically disagree with, and why; which parts — as again, it’s a comment, not a long scientific article – did you not follow. The measurements and observation are the observations and measurements of geologically radically altered long lived GG gas levels. This is a lot of science, and incorporates not just global atmosphere analysis, but some sort of loosely attempted reconstruction of past geologic history, which has involved an enormous amount of science. Not exactly witch doctor stuff.
You just want to only label data that which proves what the affect is, when that is but one small part of the data. Also, the only way data can prove it, is after the fact, which belies the entire point. And means you don’t understand the issue, are unwilling to try to understand the issue, or simply don’t want to. And instead of trying to, since you don’t understand it or don’t want to, you try to come up with more and more ways to attack me. Particularly in some of the other comments you’ve posted.
As far as current data goes, it is also supportive. You then confuse, or want to confuse, this with the mistaken notion that if there is a large climate affect, that we could chart and predict it precisely. In advance. Rather than just expect climate over time to shift with a lot of volatility. And which is generally what we’ve seen; and tried, gathering more data as we go, to increasingly model it to try to add some more concrete framework.
That framework, is not the problem. It is an attempt to capture and quantify the problem; Something that is hard to do. Exceedingly hard to do when it comes to climate; and even more so in terms of the volatility that may increase in terms of something that over time, would tend to shift and change the longer term climate. Yet you confuse that (on purpose?) with whether the phenomenon itself exists, or can be known with some degree of reasonableness as presenting a risk range. Which is, ultimately, what the whole Climate Change issue/challenge is.
You then immediately quote me again and write,
Since you are unable to post any scientific evidence showing that a “significant threat” is occurring, your assertion means nothing. If climate change poses a significant threat, why is there no evidence of any threat? Rational folks don’t ‘believe’ in something for which there is zero evidence.
If it’s a threat it’s not occurring, it’s in the future. You are again conflating the ultimate results of any long term CC affect, with any ability to have any insight into it beforehand.
You also confuse evidence with proof, as from the geologic record of gg levels, to basic atmospheric dynamics (molecular absorption and re radiation of surface emitted radiation), to past geologic conditions, to consistent ice melt to permafrost temperature to net ocean change, to now 100 plus years of accumulated ambient temperature changes — plus the most remarkable one of all, a multi million year, geologically super fast, increase (or I should say increase to levels not seen in several millions of years) – much of it in the past 50 years alone – in the concentration of the same long lived gases, that in only very small numbers, capture and re radiate enough surface heat to keep the planet ultimatelyabout 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be in its absence — there is a lot of evidencee, and has been for a while, by which to articulate a sound scientific theory and risk assessment. (Theory doesn’t mean speculation, by the way.) But “Zero” – your word above – to you. Who needs (or pretends to need) proof of the CC result, before any of it, to you, is real. It’s a logic trick: If the threat is future, but we can see some signs of change now but would have no way of isolating those out from what “could have happened,” no matter how statistically unlikely that would have been otherwise, then since we have not seen the future itself – the only possible way to prove this – “there thus can be no threat.” And, of course, by definition, no evidence of it.
Whether you did all this above on purpose or don’t realize it – from the responses back – it really doesn’t matter, it’s ultimately the same thing by this point. You will also write anything that sounds good or disparages me in nearly any way possible, so there’s really NO point in discussing with you.
John Carter says:
…all you really want to do is discredit anything I write.
But John, you make it so easy! Refuting nonsense is a piece of cake. You say:
You believe…. that the flooding we’ve already seen that is statistically unusual, is also completely “coincidental,” and that CC… won’t in the future lead to more volatile and intense precipitation weather patterns and events such as terrible flooding, or bad drought, etc.
That is correct. Extreme weather events have been moderating for decades, which is contrary to your predictions. ALL of the crazy, wild-eyed alarmist predictions have turned out to be flat wrong. When that happens, reasonable people will correctly assume that there is something wrong with the alarmists’ basic premise. Because when someone is 100% wrong in their predictions, it means they are not credible. You are not credible, John.
Next, you repeat your old canard:
…you work for or all being paid by the oil or coal industry
Right. My first check will arrive any day now. ☺
Next, you point to the change in CO2 as being evidence of runaway global warming. That is wrong. It is only evidence that CO2 concentrations have changed, nothing more. You are making an unsupportable leap from a change in a minor trace gas, to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. I have explained to you, with data based charts, that the change in CO2 is the result of rising T; it is not the cause of rising temperature. But since that explanation does not fit your belief system, it went right over your head. You cannot accept that fact, because if you did, your argument would fail.
Your arguments are no different than a Jehovah’s Witness’s arguments: you Believe, therefore you will cherry-pick anything that feeds your confirmation bias. You will argue incessantly, while never answering pointed questions or challenges. You are not arguing in good faith; you are merely asserting what you believe.
You still have not answered why you want to cause massive grief to Willis’ poor housewife by making her living costs skyrocket, based only on your evidence-free belief that your predicted climate catastrophe might happen, far in the future. That is your conjecture.
Your conjecture fails. The housewife needs help now, while you want to cause her major grief based on your unfounded, evidence-free belief. You are a scoundrel, John. If you don’t think so, let’s ask the housewife to decide. It is her life that you intend to make miserable, based only on your cAGW false alarm. But I suspect that you don’t want her to have any say in the pain you want to cause her.
John, when scientists like us have a good old belly laugh at the saying “Some people will do anything to save the planet …..
……. except take a science course”, it’s people like you we’re laughing at.
What really bugs me though is that you don’t know the correct usage of the words “affect” and “effect”. Could you work on that please and, when you’ve figured it out, could you tell Steven Mosher. At least try to make some contribution.
John Carter says:
July 23, 2014 at 7:15 pm
John, you have ignored, and continue to ignore, the fact that your plan is already hurting, impoverishing, and killing poor people around the planet. You seem to think that because your belief is “earnest” that somehow absolves you. You seem to believe that you are “entitled” to advance policies that harm, impoverish, and kill people.
Cheap electricity is the savior of the poor farmer and the poor housewife. Conversely, expensive electricity harms and kills the poor farmer and the poor housewife. If you don’t know that by now, then you are blinder than I feared.
Like I said, history won’t be kind to people who take that arrogant “father knows best” path without acknowledging what it is doing to others. A person dying in the Third World because their village clinic can’t afford to refrigerate vaccines will not be impressed in the slightest with how earnest you are. She will condemn your plan, and likely you as well, in terms not nearly as nice as mine …
Your choice, but at least now you can’t say you didn’t know your plans come with a huge human cost. Before, I said you weren’t a bad person, just someone who hadn’t thought about the effect of his plans on the poor.
Now, it appears that actually you are refusing to think it through.
I also note that you haven’t discussed my other two objections … ah, well. Do what you want. I’m not the one who has to live with the destruction and the human sorrow and suffering caused by expensive energy. I want to see cheap energy. Clearly your lucky status as part of the global 1% has gone to your head. You’re living rich, screw the rest. You can afford expensive energy, so the people in India living on $2 a day, they should only have expensive energy they can’t afford, so let’s not allow them to have coal-fired power plants.
Your proposals to increase the price of energy and its siblings are actively harming the poor today, in the name of a POSSIBLE benefit to the poor a century from now.. Do you not see how mad that is?
US power is something like 30% from coal but nooo, we can’t let the people in India have cheap electricity. So the World Bank is refusing to fund coal plants in India. John Carter says that cheap electricity is wrong, he wants to make electricity cost MORE, and he doesn’t pay any attention to the poor farmer or the poor housewife.
I said you weren’t a bad person before, John, based on one of my rules—never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by ignorance and error. Can’t say I’ve always followed it, but then who can say they’ve always acted correctly by their own lights? Anyhow, based on that I said you weren’t a bad person. And while I’m reluctant to change that judgement … dang, my friend, you’re making it hard …
In closing, let me thank you for a couple of things. First, I get the sense that you are working to explain the reasons for your beliefs and ideas. Second, your tone is measured, rather than hysterical. Third, I think you are honestly putting forward what you believe.
Anyhow, John, the truth is that expensive energy comes with a large human cost in pain, suffering, and death. Ignore that at your own cost, it’s not good for the soul to be burdened with that.
w.
If you’re still here John, could you point us to the graph where you got this data please:
“future flooding as a result of far more volatile and intense weather (already showing up a little)”?
I’m looking forward in anticipated amusement at the y-axis for this graph. How does it go ?
Quite a bit really
A tad more, honestly
A tad
Showing up a little
A smidgeon
Immeasurable dammit
The square root of f*ck all
At last a ray of sunlight!