South Korea announces delay the day after Australia’s carbon tax repeal
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
In a sign that rejection of climate alarm is gathering momentum, South Korea has thrown doubt on its carbon plans. Significantly, the announcement was made the day after Australia abolished the carbon tax. According to the report;
“July 18 (Reuters) – South Korea’s finance minister has called its impending emissions trading market “flawed in many ways”, hinting that he would pressure other ministries to delay the planned 2015 launch, a local newspaper reported.
Choi Kyung-hwan, who is also deputy prime minister, said problems had been found with the scheme, which is due to start in January, and that the government would review them before deciding whether to delay it, modify it or implement it as planned, The Korea Times reported on Friday.”
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL6N0PT3CZ20140718
(h/t to WUWT reader Pat)
South Korea’s courageous stand against carbon madness raises hope that Australia’s rejection of carbon pricing will be the domino which topples any chance of global cooperation on CO2
Bob Bolder says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:43 pm
John Carter of Mars?
Sure. I noticed several commenters on here have responded to me saying “John Carter of Barsoom?”
I didn’t really know what that meant. Then I realized it was from the Edgar Rice Burroughs book from way before most modern science fiction, and the recent flick it was made into. Which I thought was a decent enough and somewhat thoughtful flick (though most of the science fiction in it, amazing for Burroughs’ time, had since been done by other movies and was no longer novel.)
To moderator, thanks for question at the bottom of the original post. Yes, this is on the right thread, all three of the comments below being addressed in response, are from above on this [thread]. I also fixed the italics problem. Which helps the readability greatly.
Joel O’Bryan says:
July 19, 2014 at 1:21 am
CO2 is no more a pollutant than water vapor, the other output of the carbon combustion equation.
The Climate Change-Global Warming Alarmism meme is approaching collapse with each colder winter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bit chilly says:
July 19, 2014 at 1:06 am
john carter ,please do not worry about carbon dioxide .someone has been pulling your leg , it is no more a pollutant than oxygen . now the world has entered a slight cooling phase after a slight warming phase
Global Climate is the compilation of weather over time, including many cold (as well as warm) winters from all different regions of the glob, over many years. One of the first understandings of CC was the increased likelihood of more weather volatility, likely increasing over time. That means unusual warm as well as unusuall cold in various regions at various times, and more unusual and intense precip. Etc.
Pollutant is a matter of semantics. It refers to the fact that externally adding a net huge (multi million http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-10/hawaii-carbon-dioxide-measurement-for-may-9-passed-400-ppm.html not even counting other net gaseous additons geologic spike of long lived greenhouse gases that “trap” heat is going to ultimately have longer term climate impacts, probably very significantly.
“Slight cooling phase, slight warming phase,” volatility and weather are not climate. Climate is long term. These are not “short term cooling phases” but random volatility. Here is our current phase, showing a 100 year running trend upwards, with most of the twenty-est warmest years on modern record occurring in the past twenty five years. http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world
dbstealey says:
July 19, 2014 at 2:21 am
John Carter,
CO2 does not ‘trap heat’. It slows it down via re-radiation, like an insulating blanket….
….The proof: there are no empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2.
BTW, I note that you are repeatedly linking to your own blog as your ‘authority’. Bad form, John. You are no authority.
Thanks for the lesson on “trapping” but you know it’s a common term to refer to the idea that ggs, to use your phrase, slow down via radiation, like an insulting blanket. This was specifically addressed in a comment above yours. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/18/another-carbon-tax-domino-falls-south-korea-goes-cold-on-ets/#comment-1689515 From my comments you also know I often use it that way, as well as often “absorb and re radiate, which is a resulting increase in gg molecules’ energy levels through vibrational transitions (and for higher wavelength IR some virbrational rotational transition), and re radiation in all directions.
Re “proof.” The idea that a fraction rise could be proven directly attributable to CC is extremely misleading on two key counts.
First, CC is not about just any small affect to whatever the climate today would be in the absence of our huge external multi million year gg level spike. I also reference this here, and the misleading relevance of having deep views on the issue without this awareness. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690789 The earth has huge ice sheets, caps, a vast reservoir of energy in the oceans (which has been rising now for years in response ) all of which are system stases and (relativel) stable, indirect drivers of climate, and slow to respond, and a huge spike in gg woldn’t just immediately be reflected i whatever “change” it will ultimately impact.
Second, it would require knowledge of exactly what the climate would do each day for mutliple decades which by the enormous shorter term randomness and volatility of climate, is untenable. It is also scientifically illogical to then conclude that therefore, adding an external multi million year gg level spike wouldn’t or is unlikely to have. over time, and probably in not just volatility, but maybe even “fits and starts,” what we would consider a very unwelcome impact.
Re authority, it’s not bad form, as the links are plainly visible (they’re not encoded into the text) so known. Also, those are articles I know, and if they capture points directly relevant, then they’re relevant. Links are for authority, support, or further clarificatiion, or access to more info with clarification and authority. (i.e, a source which itself has multiple external links for authoritative support, as several of mine do. And as has been provided directly in several comments as well.)
[Thank you for the edit. .mod]
John C
Now I know [you’re] 20 something and liberal arts major.
Bob
I hadn’t seen your kind of wise-acre posts from above, kind of funny. But not that funny. It doesn’t seem like there is much of a willingness here to consider why most of the world’s leading scientists think climate change posses a significant threat.
But maybe a lot of mistaken notions, in some parts anyway, to back it up. For example, here (July 19, 2014 at 8:55 am) is a statement by dbstealey, who is a good (if in many other comments extremely angry and beyond discourteous ) example:
<blockquoteThere is no measurable evidence for AGW. Nothing happening now is either unusual or unprecedented. It has all happened before, and to a greater degree. Once you accept those facts, the only logical conclusion is that AGW is a non-issue. It just does not matter. At all.
It’s both illogical, and most of the basic premises are incorrect. Just because the earth has warmed sometime in the past isn’t relevant to the question of whether or not an external forcing that is spiking total long lived [gg] to levels not seen on earth in several million years will have a significant impact upon our ultimately developing climate in response.
To think that it does, isn’t logical. To then nevertheless not only believe it is logical, but base one’s entire case it anyway, is less logical still. And then to attack anything that doesn’t see it that way and does a decent enough job to show why (as well as several of his errors) – as stealey has repeatedly done in response (see some of his comments above) – and not even be wiling to consider the possibility that such a spike would have a significant affect (or even one quite “coincidentally” likely to have some relation to the current, and while not unprecedented, fairly unusual for any century time period – warming http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world ) – is, in a word, fanatical.
As is, instead of responding substantively in a way that doesn’t repeat the same basic mistaken and irrelevant notions over and over ((earth has not :”warmed” in last several years, therefore global warming is not real), posting increasingly hysterical and vile comments. Such as one or two of his last ones above. Which is also another way to do the same thing that I have laid out several times that he is doing, and may be a common pattern: Anything to discredit climate science or anyone who advocates why it is a major issue.
If my points weren’t reasonable (and also show him to be repeatedly mistaken on the central, relevant points, which he doesn’t want to change, but stick to fanatically while projecting the same outward), he wouldn’t do it; but doesn’t see that, or doesn’t see that all the terms he’s thrown out to me, religious fanatic (almost comical to an outside, objective observer, in light of my posts), experiencing cognitive dissonance, describe himself. He’s “projecting” all over the place. http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-defense-mechanisms/0001251(see no. 7 specifically) He’s continued the same pattern. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689228
And in particular http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690789 (and also http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690771 Notice the last paragraph, in light of what stealey wrote, and the actual facts, as shown right below that.)
It’s been like that with nearly every comment. As for his critique of long comments sometimes, that is just another way to attack. A comment is based on its merit, not length. Sometimes it takes explanation and analysis to accurately cover something, not the sound bites that only further the same misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions in the first place. Particularly on an issue that is as complex as climate change is.
Stealey, above, July 19, 2014 at 10:13 am (and yet again)
He is a religious True Believer, who never responds to questions.
Stealey thinks the world revolves around his comments. Here is an example of “his never responding to questions,” which he tried to turn every comment into it, when it had little to do with my original point or response,. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690757
What stealey calls my alleged “nitpicking” (also above, July 19, 2014 at 10:13 am), are what the basics of climate change are. The furthest thing from nitpicking. Or the illustration of fervently and insistently clung to errors that go to what the basics of what climate change are; once again, very far afield, from nitpicking.
John Carter Of Mars says:
The earth has huge ice sheets, caps, a vast reservoir of energy in the oceans (which has been rising now for years in response )…
Baseless assertion. Empirical evidence is lacking. The ARGO buoy array shows ocean cooling. There is no ‘hidden heat in the deep oceans’ that has been measured or quantified. That is a Trenberth assertion, without any basis in the real world. Only the gullible believe that the 2nd Law has been repealed. The rest of us know that heat rises.
Next:
…all of which are system stases and (relativel) stable, indirect drivers of climate, and slow to respond, and a huge spike in gg woldn’t just immediately be reflected i whatever “change” it will ultimately impact.
John, you cannot have it both ways. When there was a temporary coincidental warming in global T in the late ’90’s along with the rise in CO2, the alarmist crowd jumped on it, and claimed that proved that CO2 caused global warming. There was no lag time then. But that relationship quickly broke down, and it has not happened since.
Now you are claiming that there is a lag time, and so we can’t know. So which is it? I am tired of your cherry-picking whatever arbitrary factoid supports your belief system.
The fact is that changes in CO2 are caused by changes in temperature; not vice versa. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore CO2 is not the causative agent of changes in global T.
∆T causes ∆CO2, not vice versa. That cause and effect relationship is visible on time frames from years, to hundreds of millennia. But there is no empirical evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. None at all. And since the mistaken belief that CO2 causes a rise in global T is the basis of the entire “carbon” scare, your belief system has taken another fatal hit.
Your fellow Martians might agree with you. But here at WUWT, your pseudo-science is easily debunked by scientific evidence and empirical observations.
davidmhoffer says:
July 19, 2014 at 10:43 am
John Carter;
And, well, since I’m pretty knowledgeable on them (and sometimes kind of funny), how valuable!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As our conversation on the Australia thread reveals, you aren’t conversant in the very basics of the science.
It wasn’t a conversation. It was you skirting the basic points, postulating numerous things that are wildly incorrect, often in highfalutin language, that had nothing to do with my basic points, And which, to not answering, or responding to, your only argument essentially is that I’m not smart enough or knowledgeable enough.
Which is ludicrous. It would be like “I would show how you are incorrect, but you are not smart enough to follow.” Let alone that I probably have more intelligence in my left pinky than you do in your entire brain. (Hyperbole. Obviously.)
Here’s an example from that thread of some things you post that are wildly incorrect, where you have used some of your “advanced” seeming physics study to arrive at conclusions which you have almost no conceptual understanding of,
This is scientifically ludicrous, as is, even more so,the entire comment in context. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689182
Let’s get the world’s best physicists in here, or maybe the same ones, in another comment, you reference as (unlike me) knowing your basic physics – Hansen, Jones, Trenberth, etc. to comment on it, shall we? But again, you don’t even recognize conceptually the several errors you make, which run replete through most of your comments to me. “On” science.
Most of the assertions you have tried to make in monumentally labored explanation, which makes them barely worth bothering to respond to, because it is almost impossible to figure out exactly what you are saying in relation to the basic point at issue, and only seem to mainly show off knowledge which must make you credible (including, most deceptively, to yourself), on a site where people already almost fervently believe your ultimate “CC concern is mostly hooey” conclusions. So how you arrive at them (using the term “arrive” very loosely) is never really deeply or objectively examined. Nice prose, uses big physics words, shows Carter up! When what you do is avoid nearly every substantive issue.
Which is what you have to do to believe what you believe what you do when every leading atmospheric physicist disagrees with the conclusions you have made.
Every time I read one of John Carter’s long posts I expect to see at the end “and, of course, the Squirrels … ”
Whenever John Carter is asked to describe all of these ills that will befall the planet due to man emitted CO2 (He assumes effects must be bad on the whole/ Part of his world view) all we ever get is vague stuff like “unwelcome impact”.
dbstealey says:
July 21, 2014 at 4:23 pm
John, you cannot have it both ways. When there was a temporary coincidental warming in global T in the late ’90′s along with the rise in CO2, the alarmist crowd jumped on it, and claimed that proved that CO2 caused global warming.
I never argued it, don’t ascribe the arguments of others to me.
As for the ocean point, I don’t know enough about the deep heat, but I would imagine the theory might be that the entire ocean has warmed a little (the deep is still extremely cold) and there’s not a lot of easy ways to measure that collectively on a global basis. Just speculation. Feel free to take this out of context now too, and somehow turn or any peripheral misstatement into the issue of whether or not CC poses a significant climatic shift or change threat. (Since you love doing that.)
dbstealey says:
July 21, 2014 at 4:23 pm
John Carter Of Mars says:
The earth has huge ice sheets, caps, a vast reservoir of energy in the oceans (which has been rising now for years in response )…
>>>>>>>
Baseless assertion. Empirical evidence is lacking. The ARGO buoy array shows ocean cooling.
So essentially you are now taking issue with the idea that the oceans have warmed, representing a vast accumulation of energy? And basically taking issue with what, in the world of actual scientists, isn’t really in dispute? And instead calling it baseless?
As opposed to Davidmhoffer’s assertion that the fact that they have warmed is irrelevant.
Stealey, what’s your name by the way, maybe I can buy you a beer (you drink beer?) when I’m out in the land of denial. (Or wherever you are.)
On denial, you got pretty ripped about that phrase. I think this Guardian piece addresses it decently enough. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/21/nazis-climate-contrarian-credibility-gap It’s a word in the English language. Several who think CC is not a threat like the term. They deny it’s a threat. And as the phrase CC reflects that threat, they say they are deniers of it. Which is accurate.
I deny a lot of things. I deny you are being objective, for instance, but when *(if) you do become so, your perspective on CC will shift.
Justa Joe says:
July 21, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Every time I read one of John Carter’s long posts I expect to see at the end “and, of course, the Squirrels … ”
Whenever John Carter is asked to describe all of these ills that will befall the planet due to man emitted CO2
I don’t know, have I been asked to describe all the ills that will befall the planet due to what has been a multi million year external forcing affect change in the collective level of long lived [gg]?
With increased ice melt and an increasingly rising ocean (not due to just thermal expansion as them most conservative estimates solely take into account) and a change in the overall ambient temperature of the earth by at least several degrees Celsius (9/5 more than that Fahrenheit), and probably far more intense and volatile precipitation patterns and events, what do you think the affect will on us?
I know among other serious institutions, The U.S. Department of Defense, solely from the perspective of national security, is starting to study it pretty seriously. And that’s just for the peripheral, tertiary, very indirect (and speculative)affect. But I know that gets explained away also, as. conveniently, does everything.
The Department of Defense is a dedicated slave to the political interests that drive it, control it, and pay its salary. Those who use that excuse – and I have read it many times from liberal writers who are themselves getting paid by govrnment money – are simply spewing lies to distract the argument behind read, write and blew flags of convenience and ignorance.
If they had a choice, would the DOD pay 135.00 dollars for a “green energy” biofuels from democrat-party-owned fuel companies instead of 45.00 dollars for conventional fuel? Would they buy products from politically connected companies rather than get open-bid commercial products that are safer, more reliable, less expensive?
Do NOT ever assume the DOD will oppose their political masters in the White House. They – the DOD military – regularly kill their pilots and Marines and ground troops by sending them on politically-correct flight patterns into known air defenses with explicit bombing engagements just so the White House can claim political payouts using those flight paths. …
First of all The U.S. Department of Defense “studies” what the administration tells them to study., You’ll recall The U.S. Department of Defense were studying the fast approaching ice age back during the 70’s. Your attempt to invoke The U.S. Department of Defense to lend scare credence is a fail.
All of your claims of high temperatures, melting ice caps and claims of high sea levels do not exist. They are also not approaching. Everything is the same as it was when I was young, which is about 40 years ago. All you have are wild apocalyptic predictions made by people with an agenda. You cannot speak with certainty of anything until it has occurred.
John Carter
Read the article WWUT about ocean temps three articles above this one. You have no arguments left.
There is no feedback so there is no run away warming so there is no issue.
Obama is directing the military perpetration concerning global warming against the advice of his military commanders
Ocean SL rise is due to deep ocean cooling, not ocean warming
Co2 increase is a net [benefit] because of its effect on plant life. Any small increase if there is any from it is also a benefit, milder winter, more food production, increase in the amount arable land and less severe storms.
Your incomprehensible long winded posts, the substance of which, if any, are meaningless gobbledegook
Again 20 something liberal arts major
dbstealey says:
July 21, 2014 at 4:23 pm
But here at WUWT, your pseudo-science is easily debunked by scientific evidence and empirical observations.
What have you “debunked.” Arguments as to why CC poses a significant climate shift threat have been ignored. You’ve incorrectly (yet repeatedly) conflated the issue with trailing temperature data, which pretty much says it all.
And yet you’ve also relied almost solely upon the irrelevant fact that the earth “has warmed” before (and oceans have been a few dozen meters higher before, too – in fact – the last time collective gg gas concentrations were this high). And that since the last twenty years has not seen a perfectly linear year to year or even decade to decade rise in temperature (which belies any sense of what climate really is), the idea of CC, an earth system response that ultimately shifts the climate in way that would be extremely detrimental to us but absolutely “ho hum” to the planet to a geologically radical external(and still heavily ongoing) external forcing , CC can not be real.
And taken to attacking me in nearly any way possible, and sometimes pretty outrageously, not to mention, in other contexts, unacceptably.
Btw, assuming (unrealistically) for the moment that you really are trying to think about the issue, I can tell you this. You’re confusing our sense of time, with geologic time.
John Carter From Mars says:
…don’t ascribe the arguments of others to me.
So you don’t think that CO2 is the cause of global warming?? You ramble on so much it’s hard to tell. Probably a Martian trait.
Next, Carter says:
As for the ocean point, I don’t know enough about the deep heat…
No kidding. Apparently Carter doesn’t know about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, either. Any heat in the deep ocean would rise, and be detectable. But no such heat has been observed.
So essentially you are now taking issue with the idea that the oceans have warmed, representing a vast accumulation of energy? And basically taking issue with what, in the world of actual scientists, isn’t really in dispute? And instead calling it baseless?
That is exactly what I am saying. That is your conjecture, therefore, you have the onus of producing measurable, testable evidence to support your conjecture, showing rising heat in the deep ocean. So show it. Produce that evidence, if you can. If you do, you will be the first to do so. No rising heat has been measured in the deep ocean. That is Trenberth’s fantasy, but it has no real world evidence to support it. [And pay attention here: ‘evidence’ consists of raw data, and/or verifiable empirical observations. Evidence is not computer models, or pal reviewed papers.]
Next, re: denialism, denialist, etc. Columnist Ellen Goodman first used that pejorative, directly linking scientific skeptics of the “carbon” scare to Holocaust deniers. Could she be any more despicable? Yes — if she still used that label, like others still do <–[lookin' at you, Martian].
The Guardian nonsense you linked to is evidence that you like your propaganda. It says:
…because that pool of contrarian climate experts is so small…
FYI, the OISM statement was co-signed by more than 31,000 professionals, all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s. They stated unequivocally, in writing, that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. I CHALLENGE YOU to produce the names of even 3,100 professionals with degrees in the hard sciences, contradicting that statement. Put up or shut up, chump. I don’t think you can come up with even 10% of the OISM numbers. So much for your mythical ‘consensus‘, which was always a load of crap.
You ramble on senselessly, jumping from one mental free-association thought to the next. You never answer questions asked, and you act exactly like a Jehovah’s Witness whose faith has been challenged. Your entire belief system has been repeatedly debunked here, but you continue on in your religious CAGW ignorance. If you wanted to learn, there is no better place than here. Lots of knowledgeable folks would help you. But you do not want to learn, you only want to incessantly argue — a sign of immaturity. Really, it’s time for you to either grow up, or leave the science discussion to the adults.
@Carter:
Also do you think that you are using child psychology on a bunch of children? You posting that crap tells me that you’re a BS’er, a Democrat party activist, or just a gullible fool.
“I know among other serious institutions, The U.S. Department of Defense, solely from the perspective of national security, is starting to study it pretty seriously.” J. Carter
Starting to study what exactly? What tangible effect does the DOD have to study? What impact on “national security” is present. What is the threat? What is meant by “pretty seriously” Again wild predictions not welcome
John Carter says:
I don’t think it’s a scam at all. And I think (In the rest of your comment) your assertion that it is a fraud, and that I know it is a fraud, borders on …….
To accuse someone of that for having ideas, let alone ideas and opinions that are grounded in science (but even when they aren’t, people, including everyone on here, have the right to be wrong) is moving toward this:
+++++++++++++
If you think with an open mind rather than seek “other people’s” ideas to be implanted into your ideology you’d learn something right now. Seek truth rather than seeking to confirm what you already believe. This is the ultimate endeavor of humanity – to be inquisitive. You learn something when you’re wrong. Learn nothing when you’re right –or think you’re right.
You don’t seem to have ideas, rather you seem to perpetuate what you’ve been told. Those are not your ideas.
Still, you claim claim your ideas are grounded in science. If you understood science, you would understand that those who claim “The science is settled” are dishonest. Because science is never settled, especially climate science, which is barely understood.
We do know a lot about the claims being made with respect to CAGW. And the claims have been put to the test and have failed utterly. This is NOT hard to find. That you claim to have ideas grounded and science, yet have not considered what I have just written, means you have extreme bias.
Mario
John Carter
20 something liberal arts major.
My professor told me so.
I read it on Msnbc.com
John Stuart had a guy on from some country with foreign accent and he said that globerbly sourcing temperature magnetotommeter rising thermal plasticity index shows clear humidor bias indicating a likely thermal blanketsphere inversion. This indicates thermal highponics and clear proof of the theory. Don’t dis me man I know what talking about see and if you you don’t understand I will educate you using my incomprehensinator.
.
Mario Lento says:
July 21, 2014 at 5:57 pm
….
If you think with an open mind rather than seek “other people’s” ideas to be implanted into your ideology you’d learn something right now. Seek truth rather than seeking to confirm what you already believe. This is the ultimate endeavor of humanity – to be inquisitive.
I think it’s the ultimate endeavor of some, certainly myself. And I hope of mankind in general. Yet I think that some self kidding is going on here with respect to thinking that is what is being done. The responses to all my comments – attacking, misconstruing, sometimes mocking – when I make some pretty solid points, well illustrates this. The real inquisitive open mind would consider my posts from an objective standpoint.
My experience here – where very few people who are not CC refuters dare to more than cursorily go, because it’s nothing but grief – has been that anything but true, actual consideration and contemplation, and a willingness to integrate any reasonable points into one’s perspective on the issue, is one of the last things being done. One of the first things being done is the perpetuation of quite the opposite belief.
I would love to be proven wrong on that. But it seems that instead, always, with respect to any substantive point or basic observation about the climate issue, the goal is to prove me wrong, which is also the opposite of open-mindedness.
John Carter shows the difference between the climate alarmist crowd and scientific skeptics. For one thing, it is the duty of skeptics to prove a conjecture wrong, by falsifying it wherever possible. Carter whines about being proven wrong, but that is how science works. Only those facts left standing pass muster.
Like many skeptics, I was well on my way to being convinced that human CO2 emissions were the cause of global warming. That was in the mid to late 1990’s, when the big El Nino of ’97 caused a fast rise in global T.
But as knowledge and contrary evidence mounted, I began to question the cause and effect relationship. The facts have changed, and now I am firmly on the side of the skeptics’ argument: there is no measurable, testable scientific evidence to support the cAGW argument.
That is the difference between skeptics, and alarmists like John Carter. When the evidence deconstructs a particular conjecture — in this case, cAGW — then skeptics will change their minds. That is the Scientific Method in action.
But alarmists are completely different. When the evidence mounts against their conjecture, rather than consider it on its merits, the alarmist crowd digs in their heels and argues incessantly. They have taken a position, and they absolutely refuse to allow any new facts or evidence to change it, no matter how persuasive. Once they take a position, nothing can alter it. They become True Believers.
The only honest kind of scientist is a skeptic. But climate alarmists have no use for skepticism. Their belief is religious and political; never scientific. By being that way, they increasingly become purveyors of anti-science. Just look at Carter’s endless, nitpicking posts. His confirmation bias overrules his thinking, and he cherry-picks only those factoids that support his belief.
That is not science, that is advocacy. As a result, people like Carter are prime targets for modern day witch doctors like Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth. Oh, and the Guardian.
John Carter
Are you serious? You have to know you make no sense at all. You don’t make any point you just spew stuff that you heard somewhere else. Most the people here actually debate issues with point and counter point, they research, graph, generate equations and develop interesting thought experiments to ponder. They get heated and bitch at each other and learn while they are doing it.
You on the other hand are just a dopey kid trying to sound clever. Now I personally find you hilarious and my only hope is that’s what you are trying to accomplish.
Duck everyone here comes the incomprehensinator.
Justa Joe says:
July 21, 2014 at 5:36 pm
@Carter:
“I know among other serious institutions, The U.S. Department of Defense, solely from the perspective of national security, is starting to study it pretty seriously.” J. Carter
Starting to study what exactly? What tangible effect does the DOD have to study? What impact on “national security” is present. What is the threat? What is meant by “pretty seriously
I dunno. Ask DOD. They are spending some effort looking into the national security ramifications of possible international unrest, strife and war in response to an ultimately shifting climate, one with far different precipitation patterns and intensities then what we evolved under, a likely far warmer world with intense areas of heat and drought, and rising oceans not from thermal expansion, which is trifling, but increasingly accelerating (slow in our year to year terms, not so low in geologic terms) net melt. As happens when relatively stable underlying systems stases start to shift. Which – far from being a “ridiculous” effect from a multi million year change to gg levels from a super rapid external forcing, as every comment to me here has implicitly relied upon as the ‘truth” not being sought, but to be maintained – is actually a pretty plausible scenario.
I am not commenting on it, only on the fact that the DOD, for a possible and speculative tertiary affect of the underlying phenomenon, considers it important enough to look into and I imagine if possible integrate into our our ongoing defensive strategic development. Or something such
That’s all that point was. Not what you made it into.
But you also ask “What kid of tangible effect.”There is this belief that CC is simply an instantaneous response (though averaged out and integrated into overall climate) to whatever levels gg are at. Thus, if it “exists,” what we see today, is what it is. It’s nothing of the sort.
Or that it doesn’t even exist at all. And, while the climate doesn’t normally shift as much as it has in just the last 100 years, and over the entire period(relevant climate time, not the mistaken year to year/ decade to decade misconstruction that it has been turned into) the rate of increase has overall, gone up — that that happenstance is just coincidental simply because climate “does that once a while.” Yes, it does. But the most likely explanation is not the long odds coincidental one; but the simplest one. If something would affect climate, and we might start to see early (but over time, increasing) signs of it, and it is actually what we are seeing, then that is by far the most likely explanation.
But the idea of models the not being able to exactly predict the pattern get mistakenly used to invalidate the underlying idea, when the two really aren’t related. Models are just an attempt to further quantify it, and the fact they have been generally accurate in terms of the general direction of the climate, is if anything, more corroborative, because climate is otherwise random. Outside of the scope of a politically tinged issue, this is pretty easy to see.
To say it was “warming anyway” is to be Nostradamus, because climate is random. And even if it was, it wasn’t before the trend actually did start warming. So, again, it could be random, but the chances are far lower. And to say that CC doesn’t exist because the earth “can” do this on it’s own, is illogical. (But all these otherwise irrelevant ideas “climate has changed before,” or illogical ideas “climate change can’t be real or significantly causing the effect we’re seeing because the earth has warmed before, are then viewed as real arguments, if one wants to believe that CC is not “real.)
So yes, over time, with much higher [gg], we would expect to see some overall change or affect (impossible to measure, because of the underlying climate variability, though that is also mistakenly taken to mean that therefore it can not exist). But that is not the real issue. CC is not today’s (climatically integrated) response to what today’s gg levels are. At all. And the fact that there is some basic misconception of this in the media, hasn’t helped either.
John Carter
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I honestly haven’t laughed this much in years. honestly i think you are actually Anthony, Bob or Roy trying to be funny at this point, but I don’t care keep it up its great.
I am checking your text for secret codes to win a prize or something, there has to be something in there.
John Carter rambles:
the most likely explanation… an ultimately shifting climate… likely… models predict… models have been generally accurate in terms of the general direction of the climate… And so on.
No, John, models have not been accurate. NOT ONE GCM [climate model] was able to predict the current end to global warming that began 17+ years ago. They were all wrong.
John Carter, your entire screed above is a complete bunch of pointless nonsense and emotional assertions with no basis in reality. Skeptics require at least some real world evidence showing that there is cause for concern. You have provided nothing. Your whole comment amounts to “But what if…”.
If you believe there is any evidence at all to support your climate scare, then you are a lunatic. There is no evidence. I keep asking you to post any such evidence, but you always avoid doing it. You have got nothing but your emo beliefs.
Further, you always avoid discussing that corollary to the Scientific Method, the climate Null Hypothesis. The Null Hypothesis shows conclusively that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with the climate. Everything currently observed has happened before, and to a much greater degree.
The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Where does that leave you? That leaves you with no credible argument. But like any run of the mill lunatic, reality doesn’t matter to you. You are a religious True Believer. You Believe that there are signs and portents of runaway AGW everywhere. But when push comes to shove, you’ve got nothing.
Run along now, back to your thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs, where the handful of like-minded lunatics head-nod in agreement at every bit of pseudo-science presented. You people are nuts. You are like the guy who knows there is a black cat under his bed. He is certain of it; he can even hear it breathing. But when he turns on the light… there is no cat. And there never was.
Same-same with your runaway global warming fantasy. There is zero testable, measurable evidence to support that lunatic belief. But that doesn’t matter to a True Believer. You will find factoids to feed your crazy confirmation bias. Just do us a favor: take it to your alarmist blogs. Because we want facts and evidence here, not your baseless “What ifs”.
John Carter writes: “I would love to be proven wrong on that. ”
No John, you are not willing to be proven wrong. I am sure of that.
You bring up what you call good points, and they are sleighed with fact. You could check the facts and verify, but you fail to do so. The points you bring up are sophomoric talking points designed to fool the politicians and anyone who has no understanding of how science works. You are not willing to be proven wrong. But you are able to be proven wrong. And that about chalks it up here.
John Carter Says
“So yes, over time, with much higher [gg], we would expect to see some overall change or affect (impossible to measure, because of the underlying climate variability, though that is also mistakenly taken to mean that therefore it can not exist).”
Meaning its there because I say so but you wont be able to measure it, but its a big problem
“But that is not the real issue. CC is not today’s (climatically integrated) response to what today’s gg levels are. At all. And the fact that there is some basic misconception of this in the media, hasn’t helped either.”
Meaning, you know I don’t know what the hell this means. does it mean Climate Change exists irregardless of green house gas levels. Duh, climate change does exist. The only people that ever claimed there was a static climate are your friends. Does it mean that someday there might be a response to the change in Green house gas levels? OK we will wait and see, but this isn’t what your friends have said all along they have been saying the CC we are seeing know is a direct response to GG and the CC is proof that the GG is the problem, but the CC isn’t in response to the to the GGGG so now according to you we need to wait and see if the CCCC changes because of the GGGG even though we probably won’t be able to measure the CCCC because CCCC changes anyway.
Again you are the best and I am still laughing even a day later thanks. Keep it up who ever you really are it IS Funny and should be taken on the road somewhere.
I can wait for the next blast from the incomprehensinator.