Editor, Times-Dispatch, Richmaond, VA
Napoleon Bonaparte’s quote, “In politics stupidity is not a handicap,” survives since politicians continue to validate the observation.
On March 29, New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Al Gore and other states’ attorneys general announced a legal process claiming to combat climate change.
Schneiderman wrote: “Our offices are seriously examining the potential of working together on high-impact, state-level initiatives . . . whether fossil fuel companies have misled investors about how climate change impacts their investments and business decisions.”
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring stated: “Hampton Roads is the second most vulnerable area in the entire country as climate change drives continued sea-level rise.”
Behind these claims is the unsubstantiated assertion global climate change is driven primarily by manmade CO2, and that there is a magic CO2 knob to set climate to a Utopian level. The fact is atmospheric water vapor drives about 90 percent of the greenhouse gas effect. Scientists cannot differentiate natural from manmade climate change.
Schneiderman insults the intelligence of investors by suggesting they are unaware that climate change is the norm for all of geological time. Climate change reality was the impetus for commodity futures hedging by providing financial cushions for unexpected crop failures.
Herring’s claims disregard sea-level expert Dr. J. Boon of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, who has concluded: “The good news is that absolute sea level in Chesapeake Bay is rising only about half as fast as the global average rise rate. The bad news is that local subsidence more than makes up for it.” Hampton Roads is sinking irrespective of climate change.
While supporting plans to lower CO2 emissions, Herring neglects the CO2 emitted by Virginia’s beer and wine industries.
Recently in the New York Times, a report by Seth Borenstein was titled, “We all lie, scientists say, but politicians even more so.” Whether it’s lying or stupidity, we suffer under the current ruling class.
Charles G. Battig.
Charlottesville, VA
Slightly tangential but, since it’s mentioned, the New York Tass to slash hundreds of jobs:
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/24/new-york-times-to-slash-hundreds-of-jobs/21350071/
I hope Seth makes the cut, as I love to rip into his propaganda on AP.
Seth is always good for a laugh.
Not lying
Not Stupid
Just Dilaudid
Deluded by too much Dilaudid?
Spot on about sea levels at Hampton Roads.
Chesapeake Bay is the site of an old comet/meteor impact crater, which means that the land is gradually subsiding.
A study by Boon, Brubaker and Forrest in 2010 found that at Hampton Roads the land was subsiding at the rate of 2.72mm a year
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/virginia-governor-fighting-the-wrong-problem/
PH,
Read your link and saw it was dated 2014, so wanted to respond here. First, good post. Second, I’m not only one of the locals who live here, but have been here since 1959 (only because that’s when I was born). I know and have done some work with a geologist that has studied and published on the impact crater. Also, as a resident that has watched the area flood since I was a little kid, either from hurricanes or heavy summer downpours, I can say anecdotally that I haven’t noticed any increase in sea level flooding that has been any more frequent or higher than what I grew up with. When hurricane storm surges and tides can be four or five feet or more above normal with wind-driven waves on top, a sea level rise of a few mm a year is almost imperceptible.
Can we please PLEASE turn off the power and yank the long extension cords to these states?
They continue to DEMAND that OTHER states, the states that produce energy, cut back, shut down, extinguish energy.
Next they will demand that their states receive all remaining energy, thus the Hunger Games scenario where districts provide all resources to a select few.
This is already seen in the Obama/EPA waivers granted to a few power plants and refineries servicing key voting blocks on the east coast.
This is already seen in Obama granted waivers to energy courses for DC.
DC can’t even decide how to allocate electrical to hospitals versus rich neighborhoods after big storms.
All Leftists should live with the outcomes of what they push and preach on others
Eric Schneiderman, Al Gore and those other states’ attorneys general will down in history as instituting the new green McCarthyism, which “is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.”
… and ironically from the next-closest thing to communists, the radical left-wing envirnmentalists!
… they will go down in history as the new environmental McCarthyites!
That is completely unfair to McCarthy. The Venona Project pretty much vindicated McCarthy. It turned out that the people he claimed were Communists trying to undermine America were in fact Communists trying to undermine America. Even if he was wrong, he was trying to protect Americans and the American system. At worst he was a misguided Patriotic American. None of those comments apply to the Left Wing, they fundamentally hate the American System, and AGW is a great way to undermine the Free Market System.
SETTING THE RECORD ON JOE MCCARTHY STRAIGHT
The verdict on the late Senator’s anti-communist cause — and the tactics with which he pursued it.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/212053/setting-record-joe-mccarthy-straight-harvey-klehr
The Vindication of Senator Joseph McCarthy
http://www.sunray22b.net/vindication_of_senator_joseph_mc.htm
As McCarthy said, some State Department employees with communist associations might be innocent. His point was: The Democrats were still refusing to take Soviet espionage seriously by investigating these preposterous risks on the government payroll…These were not baseless charges. And as we now know, they were absolutely true.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-08-08.html
Declassified Documents Reveal KGB Spies in the U.S.
Alger Hiss, Elizabeth Bentley, and Bernard Redmont are the subjects of scrutiny.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2009/07/17/declassified-documents-reveal-kgb-spies-in-the-us
Bad analogy. Joe McCarthy was at least right part of the time.
co2islife beat me to it. Much better stated. Thanks.
I’ve known about that stuff, and /in my comment maybe you’ll see that.
What today we call “McCarthyism” was, for McCarthy himself, a road to power. He thought he had found a “cause” that would take him to the White House. McCarthy was not a patriot but a self-interested little man. Though it was true that there were Communists in high places in the American government, McCarthy misused that truth and by misusing it corrupted that truth.
And people forget that “McCarthyism” was practiced by others. It spread into many corners of American society — the witch hunts in Hollywood being the best remembered example. (Alright, there were some real witches there and there still are but that does not mean you get to burn them — unfortunately.) A lot of rather ordinary people lost their jobs because of McCarthyism.
At its center McCarthyism was not “Noble corruption”. McCarthy was personally corrupt. But McCarthyism spawned “noble corruption” in many many others.
That is the same situation we see today in “climate”. The people at its true core are personally corrupt — but have spawned “noble corruption” in their too many followers. The situations only differ in that there were in McCarthy’s time real communists in the American government who actually were a danger — whereas today catastrophic warming and catastrophic weather are totally fictional.
Eugene WR Gallun
McCarthy used a fear narrative to do stupid, just like cAGW
Right after WW 2, only the U.S. had the atom bomb which was huge advantage against Soviets.
Two Americans were found guilty of giving the atom bomb secret information to the Soviets which in turn gave the Soviets huge world clout.
The American people became alarmed about this situation which led to an investigation to determine if there were other Soviet spies within the U.S. government.
Wow CO2 AnnCoulter lol
McCarthyism turned America on Americans and thousands were caught up in something they had nothing to do with.
Criminals in their hundreds were allowed to sell drugs and do whatever as long as they spied on their communities, bit like the FBI today threatening Muslims to spy on their neighborhoods.
Everyone was a possible enemy to the state under McCarthyism and there were as always in such an environment entirely baseless denunciations both private and public that were baseless yet did damage.
The FBI in that time was turned on society, not just particular suspects in government.
Where was McCarthyism when Prescott Bush and his Barons tried a Nazi putsch 🙂
Mart,
Take an aspirin and lie down. You’re going to blow a gasket.
Sun Spot
April 24, 2016 at 5:30 pm
“McCarthy used a fear narrative to do stupid, just like cAGW”
—————–
So does my insurance agent. I ignore that stupid #*&%, too.
I knew these types of responses were going to happen, but I see your responses reveal even more of the irony of the whole situation.
We think the warmists are wrong, and they are [we are right], just like McCarthy thought there were communists infiltrated into the US govt, and there were [he was right]. McCarthy probably did a lot of wrong things or did things wrong, or both, but, if he had used different tactics, he might have been more successful – but look at who he was fighting… Some of his problems were personality-oriented.
Unfortunately history marks those tactics with his name. The tactics are just that, and the tactics can be used by anyone else, as they have been now.
The Gore-bots are using McCarthyite tactics from the other side now, they’ve flipped it, Alinksy-like, just the Marxist revolutionaries always do. Look at who we are fighting now – we are fighting McCarthy’s enemy.
Ironic.
..Some of his methods were wrong, yes, but he had the greatest good for the country as his goal, not it’s destruction !
No offense intended Bob, I was just elaborating.
Absolutely Marcus; and no problem CO2isLife. We know what we’re up against.
Good answer Marcus.
McCarthy’s cause was very noble though somewhat corrupted, wasn’t it?
The other night I was discussing the death of the musician Prince with some friends, and found myself asking a lot of questions about the seeming paradox of a supposedly straight arrow religious guy dying of a drug overdose.
It was suggested that he got hooked on pain killers because he needed hip replacements, and since his religion, Jehovah’s Witness, forbids blood transfusions, he decided he could not have the surgery and instead just took pain killers and kept on dancing and performing, apparently hoping the problem would just go away.
Now, without going into the whole slew of questions and further paradoxes which this sequence of events raises, I had no read up about the whole Jehovah’s Witness religion, and why they believe the things they do, how and when such a religion got started, and how blood transfusions became a central tenet of a religion in the first place.
I have to say, in a ridiculous world, this religion stands out as really really seriously ridiculous. I was surprised by just about every single thing I found out about these people, and decided it was just about on a par with Scientology in terms of ridiculous made up crap.
But then something even more interesting came up in my research into JW theology. In retrospect it should not come as much of a surprise, but a lot of what i was reading began to have uncanny parallels to CAGW alarmism. The reason I say it should not have been surprising is because both are made-up ridiculous crap.
I do not usually quote Wikipedia as a reference, but on matters such as researching a religion, it seems like a place where some condensed and verifiable info is readily available.
Anyway, here is what I found, and it reads like a playbook for warmistaism, right down to a nearly word for word condemnation of anyone who disagrees with the Jehovah’s Witness theology, as spoken that very day by CAGW adherent and self-appointed spokesactor Alec Baldwin:
“”Doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses are established by the Governing Body.[314][315] The religion does not tolerate dissent over doctrines and practices;[143][316][317][318] members who openly disagree with the religion’s teachings are expelled and shunned.[235] Witness publications strongly discourage followers from questioning doctrine and counsel received from the Governing Body, reasoning that it is to be trusted as part of “God’s organization”.[318][319][320][321] It also warns members to “avoid independent thinking”, claiming such thinking “was introduced by Satan the Devil”[322][323] and would “cause division”.[324] Those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as “apostates” who are “mentally diseased””
It would be amazing if it was some random coincidence that such disparate groups would just happen to have adopted exactly the same playbook for how to coerce adherents into swallowing the whole ball of malarkey in one swallow.
I would love to hear anyone else’s take on this or anything related.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJehovah%2527s_Witnesses&h=2AQGgouYp
Bob Weber wrote: “Unfortunately history marks those tactics with his [McCarthy’s] name.”
It wasn’t history that marked McCarthy, it was the Leftwing news media who wrote a false narrative about the whole thing. Kind of like they do today.
This is the first incident of leftwing media bias/feeding frenzy in the post World War II era, that I am aware of.
Nowadays, we are used to the Liberal News Media going on frantic crusades to damage their political opponents, but the McCarthy incident was the first time they all got together on the same page, to go after a common opponent.
I assume, since the Leftwing media sympathized with communists then, that that was the reason they got so worked up about the McCarthy hearings, and distorted the truth about it as much as they could, in defense of their leftwing belief systems.
Reading M. Stanton Evans’ book on McCarthy, Blacklisted by History, the only charge made by McCarthy that was off-base was his attack on George Marshall. Whatever his motives, he was right almost all of the time. A factor here was that there were evidently whistle-blowers who had seen what was going on, and finally had someone to pass the information to.
Incidentally, to put all this into perspective, especially the ‘persecution’ of those ‘innocent Americans’, remember that upwards of 70 million Chinese lost their lives unnecessarily because of Communists and actual Soviet spies who had infiltrated the US government and had a major effect on foreign policy decisions especially in regard to the civil war in China in the late 40s. If it wasn’t for those infiltrators, China would now be a thriving democracy and we wouldn’t tending toward a war over the Pacific.
The worst abuses were due to the House Committee on Un-American activities. McCarthy was a Senator. Not defending McCarthy, just pointing out the fact.
The Left has to have a demon to focus their anger on. McCarthy served that purpose.
It’s hard to tell what McCarthyism really is anymore: is it what he did or the reaction to what he did?
To Menicholas,
I dove into the new-age stuff as an area of interest, never as a knowing participant, and learned that the basic mind-control methods are common to many such organizations/ideologies.
The central idea is the promotion of a supposedly all-powerful fault-free central dogma, and if anyone goes off the reservation from that dogma, the cult “ethics” committee swoops in and uses every trick in the book to keep the wool pulled over the victim’s eyes and force those unhappy with their indoctrination back into the fold.
The cult leaders, in this case Gore, et al, use psychological projection and various other narcissist abuse type methods to intimidate anyone from challenging their new green dogma. In their eyes, it’s a noble cause.
These efforts are being made to enforce their groupthink, to establish new aggressive and acceptable behavior norms for the warmist side, the media, and politicians. Gore is the bully who is making it legally acceptable to bash, trash and smash any opposition.
Hitler had his enabling laws. Lenin and Stalin made their revolution legal. Look who’s leading the ‘legal’ assault now: Gore’s Green Gestapo!
Expect more of it unfortunately – these people are seriously psycho – stupid and/or lying – they’re dangerous.
I believe it’s called Denial of Rights Under Color of Law, and it’s a felony for anyone in government to do so.
Well said Bob Weber! After the fall of communism, radical leftists migrated to the radical green party.
Easy. They have a reasonable expectation that the mainstream media will endorse their ignorance and lies, which is where the stupid and ignorant politicians probably got the meme in the first place. Journalism majors are as fact-free in their education as women’s studies or english literature majors, so the daisy-chain goes on and on.
Actually all this bloviating by politicians may help the skeptic cause. It’s obvious the media war is lost and the courts may be the only line of defense a la the Barbara Streisand effect.
Media war is not lost because not yet over. Even MSM is starting to report the huge costs (subsidy cuts and intermittency risks) and futility (China and India won’t play along) of US and European actions. And increasingly alternative media (Breitbart, for example) are quite skeptical. 25 years of Warmunist momentum won’t get reversed in a few years, but reverse it will since Mother Nature appears to be on the skeptical side.
Hi ristvan
This a bit O/T but perhaps sill on. I stumbled upon same temperature records/claims for ww2 Iran.
without a due the temps 160 F & 168 F at the 113th army hospital at Ahwaz Iran. The records are from USA engineering troops handling Lend lease supplies to the Soviets.
Below is one link
Have you any knowledge of this? 168 F seems to high. If it is true then the time period was hotter then present
michael
http://www.parstimes.com/history/persian_gulf_command.pdf
Oops the reference is half way down the third page (p307)
michael
..Fox News, #1 for the last 5 years, is finally catching on !!
ristvan wrote: “Media war is not lost because not yet over.”
Exactly right. “It’s not over until it’s over”, according to a very good New York Yankees catcher.
Media war’s not lost at ALL–did the rest of you read George Will’s column in the Washington Post yesterday? He calls the warmists out on the desperation of their position, and calls them totalitarians to boot! Cat’s out of the bag, now: http://junkscience.com/2016/04/scientific-silencers-on-the-left-are-trying-to-shut-down-climate-skepticism-2/
“the courts may be the only line of defense”…
I wouldn’t be too hopeful about what they might decide. Remember, it was SCOTUS who declared CO2 to be a pollutant.
thallstd commented: “…I wouldn’t be too hopeful about what they might decide. Remember, it was SCOTUS who declared CO2 to be a pollutant….”
True, but the discovery and trial would let the skeptics voice be heard which is not happening now. That’s why the alarmists would never let it happen.
I don’t think that’s true.
I believe SCOTUS told the EPA that by laws that congress passed it was up to EPA to identify and mitigate pollutants.
EPA chose to identify CO2 for mitigation.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
Mike,
I don’t have the ruling in front of me but the two sources below indicate that it was SCOTUS who declared CO2 to be a pollutant, thereby giving the EPA the right (and obligation) to regulate it….
https://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070402
https://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php
You are wrong thallstd.
The court never ruled or “declared CO2 to be a pollutant”.
It did find cause, in the 2007 ruling, to say that the EPA does have authority to regulate greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. It did not declare that CO2 is a GHG as a matter of law, but rather seems to have accepted the view of many scientists that it is as a given that CO2 is a heat trapping, or “greenhouse” gas.
The first link you posted has zero credibility as a source of factual legal information, and the second link gave a terse and unclear reference to the actual verbiage of the SCOTUS ruling (actually there have been more than one rulings on the issue of CO and the EPA ever the years, including the most recent one in which the SCOTUS blocked implementation of the Obama EPA recent rule changes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/23/supreme-court-greenhouse-gas/8567453/ ).
For a serious discussion of the actual ruling, try an actual news source. The NYT is pretty much a rag anymore, but on SCOTUS rulings you will at least get a reasonably accurate discussion of what was actually in the ruling. Or you could read the 66 page ruling itself.
Here are links to both:
Courts in general, and the SCOTUS in particular, generally use precise language in their rulings.
Scientists likewise ought to use precise language.
People commenting on scientific issues ought to use precise language in discussions of factual information, or there is little reason to even talk.
Heat trapping gasses, greenhouse gasses, pollutant…these are all different things.
Just what is a pollutant? Out in a farm field, nitrogen, phosphorus…heck, dirt in general…are not pollutants, are they? But in a river they can be considered pollutants.
Similarly, the term “greenhouse gas” is rather imprecise and, IMO, should be avoided. Although most know what the term refers to, the term is itself based on erroneous notions of the atmosphere and just what causes a greenhouse to get hot inside.
The SCOTUS said in 2007 that the EPA must have science based reasons for regulating or not regulating CO2 and other such gasses…they cannot just give a list of reasons why they should not do it. They did not even order them to act…but the ruling made it clear that more lawsuits would result of they did not.
From the NYT:
“The new ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on carbon dioxide emissions is a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority.
The ruling does not force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate auto emissions, but the agency would almost certainly face further legal action if it fails to do so.
In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 on Monday that the agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions.
The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could “avoid taking further action” now is “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.
Beyond the specific context for this case – so-called “tailpipe emissions” from cars and trucks, which account for about one-fourth of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions – the decision is highly likely to have a broader impact on the debate over government efforts to address global warming.
The ruling has largely shredded the underpinning of other lawsuits trying to block regulation of the emissions and gives new momentum to congressional efforts to control heat-trapping gases linked to climate change.”
And:
“Stevens, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, said that by providing nothing more than a “laundry list of reasons not to regulate,” the Environmental Protection Agency had defied the Clean Air Act’s “clear statutory command.”
He said a refusal to regulate could be based only on science and “reasoned justification,” adding that while the statute left the central determination to the “judgment” of the agency’s administrator, “the use of the word ‘judgment’ is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/americas/03iht-scotus.1.5124385.html?pagewanted%3Dall&_r=0
And when you say “I do not have the ruling in front of me”, it leads one to wonder a few things. Did you read the ruling, but do not have it handy at the moment?
Or did you just do an internet search for those two links, but not see that any search using about any three words on the subject will give the actual ruling text from the SCOTUS website?
If I am wrong I am sorry, but your posts and links seem ill-informed and may be seen as disingenuous.
The SCOTUS ruling from 2007, which took me two seconds to find:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
“provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.”
I would guess that there are dozens of regular commenters here, me included, that could give a well reasoned and factual argument, that would stand up in court, of why the EPA should not regulate CO2.
We do so here every single day.
menicholas,
Thanks for the clarification. Nothing disingenuous in my posts. The first was what I recalled the ruling to be, as it discussed in numerous articles and discussions at the time it was made. The second, a case of confirmation bias. Lesson learned…
Nice précis, Menicholas.
They say auditors show up after the battle to bayonet the wounded. Politicians are a similar animal that figures out which way the crowd is going and jumps out in front. When the weight of evidence begins to tip our way the politicians will change their stripes without blinking.
Begins to tip our way?
It never tipped the other way, in my view.
Maybe you meant to say …when the weight of evidence that public opinion…
But even that does not really hold up.
polling indicates overwhelmingly that few people consider climate change a major issue…in fact it polls at or near the very bottom of a long list of voters concerns.
The case of Jagadish Shukla, and how him and his band of grant-happy fraudsters really stepped in some deep doo-doo when they issued their ill-advised public call to prosecute people who disagree with them, illustrates very well that people living in stolen glass houses should not be throwing rocks.
Taking such a case to court, if it should ever get that far, would mean that every slanted fact and adjusted data-point would be subjected to rules of evidence, discovery, cross-examination, and lots of other potentially very inconvenient thingamadoodles that happen when stuff goes to court.
A complete and utter moral bankruptcy is the foundation of Left Wing politics. This is a quote from the Left Wing’s George Washington. Absolutely pathetic.
There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience.
A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.
– Vladimir Lenin
Agreed. And to take that concept further, if we want to win against “settled science” (which is unsubstantiated and legitimately arguable) and the AGW theory (which has been scientifically falsified in its present formation), we need to start understanding the enemy (i.e. most climate scientists and most world politicians) and the scope of this moral bankruptcy better.
As I wrote on a thread a few days ago, more of us need to read “The Art of War” – Sun Tzu, which offers many golden nuggets…
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”
“To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
“All warfare is based on deception.”
Wait a sec….If in order to ” know my enemy”, I must “become my enemy”, and so I do, then logic dictates at that point we’d both be on the same side and thus no war would be necessary. Right? 🙂
..No Aphan, he means you have to play by the same rules as your enemy ! Please read ” The Art of War” – Sun Tzu “..Never tie your soldiers arms behind their backs and expect them to win !
..Aphan, Fight to win, or don’t fight at all !!
In the words of the immortal Carl Spackler, assistant groundskeeper at Bushwood Country Club…
So, what you are saying is we need to put dynamite into the burrows of the warmista gopher’s fancy golf course of lies?
Equivocating the right-wing to the left-wing is like equivocating gang rape and mass murder to Jay walking. Fighting for smaller constitutional limited effective government, individual freedom, and life isn’t exactly a morally bankrupt agenda. All this corruption comes from big government globalist elitist totalitarians. Basically the ones that avoid tea parties.
Now you have it!
Durn-tootin’ CO2islife!
Now, if only we could get some actual conservatives to run for office and get elected, we may have a snowball’s chance in the well of the Senate of achieving that goal.
There’s an old saying.
A conservative watches a group of people an thinks to himself, “Man these guys are dumb, I don’t want them to run my life.”
A liberal, watching the same group of people things to himself, “Man these guys are dumb, they need me to run their lives for them.”
Politicians are addicted to making the grand gesture. History is hindsight, voters are present and future sight. Climate change is the perfect gesture because the predictions are so far forward, generations will come and go before it is found to be useless.
This is the language of precaution, saving the planet for future generations while bankrupting the current and next ones. After 25 years or more, the current generation sees climate change as a null issue. In fact the grand gesture has been instrumental in bankrupting Spain and Portugal and contributing to forest degradation in Africa and South America in pursuit of carbon credits. It is holding poor people back by making them remain dependent on wood fires.
It is a biologically hollow gesture as the extra CO2 is helping to increase crop yields to feed all our biodiversity including an estimated 1.5 billion people who on figures of yield and fibre would be starving today without the current CO2.
Hidden under the grand gesture is outright greed and avarice. That is hidden by the entirely arbitrary figure of 2C rise as if the Little Ice Age is the ideal norm for climate.
It is only recently they have moved the end-date for their failed predictions out to the distant future.
And they have only done this because they kept making predictions that failed while everyone was still paying attention and keeping notes.
In fact, by any normal method of reckoning such things, these people have already lost the argument and have zero credibility to predict even a sunrise.
Concerning the headline, lying or just stupid. Don’t rule out both as the likeliest conclusion.
Ristvan, you beat me to it! 🙂
Just what I was thinking!! Why the “OR”????? “And” is apropiate.
Agreed ristvan.
From March 2009:
– note the comment “scoundrels AND imbeciles” – the two terms are not mutually exclusive. 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/01/hansens-coal-and-global-warming-protest-may-get-snowed-out/#comments
Snow Blankets Washington Region
By Michael E. Ruane and Michael Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/02/AR2009030200476_Comments.html
Today in Washington a big protest on global warming is in danger of being snowed out.
No irony there.
For about the past decade, Earth has been cooling [or static], not warming.
The politics of the phony global warming crisis make Alice in Wonderland look quite sane, in comparison.
Regrettably, we are being governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.
Regards, Allan
You got that right Allan.
“lying or just stupid”
The answer is yes.
In answer to the question I would say, both, they lie with impunity and are stupid enough to think we all believe them!
As a Virginia citizen, I always have to look twice at photos of Atty. Gen. Herring. From his actions, I always expect him to have only one arm–the left. He has been the most ungovernable and lawless attorney general in Virginia history, to my knowledge; and his disregard of the facts is as flagrant as his contempt for the law. His stance on the climate change issue is typical, as is his shoot-from-the-hip language. (Did any of you see the Mythbusters episode in which various methods of shooting a pistol were tested, and shooting from the hip was by far the least accurate?)
Dr. Ware says:
…shooting from the hip was by far the least accurate
It’s even less accurate that holding the gun sideways, ‘hood-style??
In ‘hood-style shooting, at least the gun is near eye-level.
BTW, I did not know that holding the gun sideways had a name.
You can learn something new everyday if’n you pay attention!
The problem with hood style is handling the recoil. The first shot may have some degree of accuracy. However the accuracy goes down rapidly with each subsequent shot.
https://youtu.be/XsU5AMxvlKg
tom k,
I would be very polite to that guy!
I expect that he is a red Herring.
He is the most non-representative AG I think Virginia’s ever had. He’s more interested in advancing the Left’s agenda. Makes me so mad that Virginia’s name has been attached to this subversive effort to allow Courts to make law over our elected representatives. Congress has already been weakened; if this kind of stuff keeps going on, we won’t need a Congress–we’ll just live by dictate.
..Revolution 2 ??
I saw a story a couple of days ago that the Gov of VA is planning on automatically restoring voting rights to all felons.
Are these politicians lying or just stupid?
They are lying AND stupid, of course!
“Whether it’s lying or stupidity, we suffer under the current ruling class.” ~ Charles G. Battig.
We suffer under any ruling class as the State is raw aggression. The State can not make the common citizen richer, but it damn sure can make them much poorer.
The country started under laissez-faire free markets with a minimum of governmental interference. It is now a police state, but the people are convinced it is still a “free country”. Non so blind as those who refuse to see.
I’m not sure I would go so far as to say it was laissez-faire, but it was pretty close.
Both. Actually the two are not mutually exclusive as most of their lies are in fact stupid.
I’m not certain this effort to go after corporations for not fully informing their investors is going to go down well even among liberal friendly corporations. Think of Goggle and its continuing efforts of renewables after their own engineers deemed it impossible in the near future. Or the Microsoft / Apple battle when Gates plucked an Apple and made it his own. I don’t think even the liberals want AG’s looking into what informs board decisions.
If no one else has posted this yet, maybe now would be a good time for those folks to watch this video:
Sorry, Sir, always describe the video with couple of lines of text. Do not just post a link. I never open videos without knowning in advance what the content is. Also, it would be helpful if the comment explained the relevancy exactly here. Also, who did the video? There are well financed organizations (Greenpeace, for one) which do not hesitate to lie to push their opinion.
So, your video explains what top climate scientists, like, to name a few, Schmidt, Mears and Spencer say? Or does it simply exclude scientists who it consider CO2 not an apparent threat?
Because if you chose climate “scientists” like Viner, Oreskes or Cook, you are wasting your time. We know what they say, and nothing good comes out of that scaremongering. I happen to remember the fear of the next ice age. It was more intelligent than what Viner did.
From the article:
Beer / wine production has no measurable effect whatsoever on climate. Period. There is no point on discussing marginal issues. We don’t have real evidence that non-marginal decisions like externalizing CO2 emissions to China have a positive effect. If I believe in Tol and Lomborg – and I trust in their excellency here – things done so far have been pretty much 100% useless in mitigation and there is nothing coming out as a quick solution.
Some claim technological advances will make coal redundant; I have hard time believing that would happen if greens keep trying to stop economy from growing. New power sources are needed before CO2 emissions can be reduced. Our best bet now is adaptation; in the long term, I hope fusion power solves our energy problem for a while. Paul-Erlich-like ‘solutions’ might stop anthropogenic climate change. They might also be much more self destructive to humanity than not adapting to climate change at all, and sometimes I believe this is what many greenies actually want.
Hugs, I agree, and at first did not open it either.
It is a video discussion by Richard Lindzen of MIT, a skeptic, and is well worth watching and passing along.
It identifies the main players in the global warming/climate science issue, and calls out in particular politicians, the environmental left, and the media, and points out some areas of general agreement between CAGW skeptics and the IPCC.
Actually my agreement with Hugs post ends after the first few sentences.
Hugs, I am tired and need to sleep, but briefly, the US has decreased CO2 emissions by switching a lot of power generation from coal to natural gas, although there is zero measurable evidence that CO2 is in any way harmful or has led to any detectable warming, and there is also no evidence or good reason to expect that some warming is in any way to be feared or even avoided. We live on a planet which is a frozen wasteland over much of it’s surface all year round, and over a far larger part of the surface on a seasonal basis. Humans are well adapted to warm and even very hot weather, as is most of the life on Earth, while excessively cold temps are fatal kill nearly everything pretty fast.
Given an adequate supply of water, we can farm the hottest deserts.
We have nothing we need to adapt to…nothing much has changed for years on end now…going on 20, so adaptation being our best bet is a puzzlin’ statement.
Fusion? I think maybe we ought to figure out a way to make it work before we start deciding that it is our best bet for anything except wasting a lot of money on. If it works…great! Just because we can think of it does not make it just a matter of time though…it may never be possible to get usable power using fusion.
You seem a rather different sort of skeptic, being leery of even opening a link because it might be from someone you disagree with, and yet you seemed to have swallowed a lot of alarmist malarkey.
The climate regimes of the Earth have always changed and always will. people have always adapted and always will. We do this without even having to think about it most of the time, because it proceeds over periods of time which exceed a parsons lifespan, the amount of time a building lasts for, how long it takes to plan and grow and harvest a crop…etc.
And what is this crap about Paul Erlich-like solutions?
He is a fear monger who has never been right about anything, ever. In fact he is a case study of how wrong someone can be and still have credibility.
He does not have solutions, just imaginary problems and fearmongering.
Unless you mean depopulation. In that case…yes, killing most of the people on earth may be a wee-tad destructive to humanity.
Yeah, my bad.
I can see where I didn’t state that I meant the “politicians who are lying or just stupid” should watch the video, either, which is really what I meant.
I mean, we (skeptics) can watch it too, especially if we want to watch something that makes our heads go up and down in an agreeable fashion.
never been right about anything, ever. No s**t. How does Ehrlich get any credibility and traction?
Respected Canadian journalist, Dan Gardner, wrote a great book in 2011: Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail – and Why We Believe Them Anyway that dismantled Ehrlich, but it didn’t get much play here unfortunately.
NYT review of Dan Gardner’s book: Why Experts Get the Future Wrong
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/books/review/book-review-future-babble-by-dan-gardner.html
Oh, and Menicholas @ April 24, 2016 at 11:29 pm, above, describes the video extremely well.
Thanks.
I agree.
I prefer to think of them as stupid liars.
/snark
“Are these politicians lying or just stupid?”
Yes.
Actually, the word “or” should be replaced with “and”.
Embrace the power of the word and.
A rather vital conjunction.
Always interesting to see Al Gore when the oil industry is involved. He and his dad made plenty of money from Occidental Petroleum, and then Al cashed-in selling his TV channel to Al-Jazeera and it’s ties to Middle Eastern oil riches.
(really needed my phone to go with “its,” lol)
The writer is, I presume, Charles Battig, the Heartland Expert.
Why am I not surprised…it’s silly trolls all the way down!
I don’t think Dr Battig is a troll. I believe he’s more to be trusted than famous professor Lewandowsky.
That I presume would be Professor Nick Stokes BSc, MSc, PhD late of CSIRO, team leader who back in the mid-90s developed Fastflo airflow software that Daimler-Benz was looking for to make their cars run faster and cheaper.
All you Merc owners out there owe Nick a debt of gratitude.
So his technology was designated for and has been used by “Merc owners” polluting the atmosphere and adding loads of CO2 admissions? The irony is hilarious.
It would be interesting to know if Nick has received a share of the royalties.
All the alphabet soup in the world don’t count for squat.
In science, only being correct counts.
Who says it does not count.
What else they said or did don’t count.
Whether they are famous or not don’t count.
Being real smart don’t count.
Inventing something brilliantly wonderful a long time ago, or even yesterday, don’t count.
And being right about x, y, and z, does not make one right about a, b, or c.
Only being right about a, b, or c counts when the questions are regarding a, b, and c.
Science is not a popularity contest, is not a vote, and is not a who’s who parade.
It is about what is true, and what is not true.
If Mr. Stokes can not come up with one single word to refute, cast doubt on, or prove wrong what the author has said on this topic in this article, but instead can only try to discredit someone by pointing to some irrelevancy, well…
I believe the writer of this comment is Nick Stokes, an ex-CSIRO “expert”, and IMHO a paid to be here commenter who argues in circles.
So if it’s due to Climate Change, it should be accelerating, right?
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8638610
Although I suppose someone may have to sit these folks down and explain the meaning of “accelerate” to them.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Can you clarify whether you think either of those two curves indicates acceleration of sea level rise attributable to atmospheric CO2?
If Mr. Stokes can attempt to discredit someone by pointing out that they are with the Heartland Institute, I think we can flat out disregard anything published by NASA on a climate related issue…because it was made by climate people from NASA.
If that is not a black spot on credibility, I do not know what is.
..70 mm/Yr ?? LOL
Good luck! They don’t do physics!
They are lying because they are not stupid, but the electorate are.
Power goes to whoever fools the most people.
It’s that simple.
Of course power alone is not that good at making a better future. lf you are that stupid,.
Which is why civilisations come to an end.
Well said philsopher.
“Schneiderman wrote: “Our offices are seriously examining the potential of working together on high-impact, state-level initiatives . . . whether fossil fuel companies have misled investors about how climate change impacts their investments and business decisions.””
Yep, fossil fuel companies’ own scientists reported that AGW is real and potentially dangerous decades ago. The companies leaders know this but donate money (directly or through intermediaries) to think tanks such as the CEI. These think tanks then try to sow doubt on the reality of climate change, by creating a stream of “talking points” that are repeated in many echo chambers, thereby trying to mislead the public and the investors.
“and that there is a magic CO2 knob to set climate to a Utopian level.”
No. You misunderstand the point. There is no utopian level. It is about the rate of change that could have dystopian consequences.
“The fact is atmospheric water vapor drives about 90 percent of the greenhouse gas effect.”
Water rains out of the atmosphere on short time scales.
“Schneiderman insults the intelligence of investors by suggesting they are unaware that climate change is the norm for all of geological time.”
What? They try to make a case about companies misleading investors, not about investors being stupid.
“Climate change reality was the impetus for commodity futures hedging by providing financial cushions for unexpected crop failures.”
Mixing weather with climate here. If climate were the cause of crop failures, the commodity futures market would collapse.
“While supporting plans to lower CO2 emissions, Herring neglects the CO2 emitted by Virginia’s beer and wine industries.”
Are these CO2 emissions -like fossil fuels- not part of the existing carbon cycle, but instead are an addition?
Now that’s a wagen-load of lies, disinformation and climate crap right there. Typical Warmist troll.
Your arguments have persuaded me! I am now on your side! Love and kisses!
I think you got your carbon cycle wrong. It is not the CO2 from the beer, it is the energy consumption. Letting yeast to waste the energy of sugar means you added to the CO2 emissions. Some additional emissions come from energy use related to growing grapes, building the needed machinery, transporting, bottling, storing etc. By drinking enough, you of course remove yourself from the pool of people who create additional energy usage. By that way, wine production could be a net carbon dioxide sink. But it is not.
But this is all red Herring, because the argument is so marginal that it is really a really marginal argument. Really.
Really?
OK, OK…really!
Wagen, what else do you expect when you repeat lies that have been refuted over and over again. Not to mention the subject of several articles here in the last few weeks?
“Now that’s a wagen-load of lies, disinformation and climate crap right there. Typical Warmist troll.”
Tsk tsk, name calling instead of an actual refutation. How third grade of you.
Chris, either you haven’t been around here long, or your just another one of the trolls who seek to de-rail conversations.
MarkW said “Chris, either you haven’t been around here long, or your just another one of the trolls who seek to de-rail conversations.”
Derail? No. Wagen made a lengthy post with a number of specific points, and Bruce Cobb’s reply was not a refutation, but rather just called Wagen a warmist troll. That’s not science, that’s name calling. Of course, it’s easier to attack someone than refute their points, but pointing that out does not make me a troll, nor is it derailing the conversation.
“…What? They try to make a case about companies misleading investors, not about investors being stupid…”
If the investors are misled into believing the climate changes, then yes, the implication is that they are stupid. You seriously didn’t get this point?
How about Stephen Schneider’s statement about using scary scenarios to influence the public and scientists individually deciding for themseleves how much honesty needs to be included? How about the climategate revelation of scientists who say one thing to the public and another behind closed doors? Or colluding to get papers published that support the cause and rejecting papers and authors that don’t? Where do these fit in?
(Should say “…climate never changes…”)
“You seriously didn’t get this point?”
Of course I get it. You think fossil fuel companies can tell everyone there is no problem with there business model, even though there is. Law says they should be honest. Present investigations (Exxon Mobil) seeks to figure out if they are culpable.
Oh geez, I didn’t pay attention to the name of the poster I was responding to. Of course you didn’t get it.
No-one is forced to use fossil fuels.
If I though they will lead to dangerous climate change™ I would stop using them.
If the good people of Virginia or anywhere else think fossil fuels are dangerous they should stop using them.
And that applies to you too Mr/Mrs/Miss Wagen.
Tragedy of the commons
The tragedy of the commons has nothing to do with allegedly dangerous climate change™, in fact there is nothing alarmists would like better than for fossil fuels to run out.
Tragedy of the commons is the trillions of economic benefits from cheap energy flowing out across all of society, including the blind imbeciles who refuse to recognize it. Billions would be starving today without fossil fuels. You don’t deserve to eat!
That tripe isn’t even worth the link it takes to remind you of the documents released in the current discovery showing
the men whose companies founded the American evironmental movement – big oil, knew the AGW movement was utter bunk in the early 1960s, all the way through to the present.
Now. You are here regularly, claiming you know AGW is actual science. What is the name of the law of chemistry for solving temperature in gas and atmospheric mixes?
What’s it’s formula?
What do each one of the formula’s factors stand for?
Which of those is the Green House Gas Effect?
When you can tell everyone those things you have some right of claim here. WUWT was founded in discovering your so called ‘scientific leadership’ were doing disastrous science not even worth printing.
That’s just on the things sitting on the ground out where people can walk up and take a photo of it.
Then you had your other leadership Phil Jones get seen in the 2005 climategate email saying ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since1998. Ok it has but it’s only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
Then you had your leadership Phil Jones confess in his Feb 2010 BBC don’t-go-to-jail interview that – it hadn’t warmed a tenth since the mid 1990s. Actually even earlier than 98 he told them it started cooling since 95, although he was under sedation and distraught at having been caught and thrown to the dogs by his OWN leadership the Met Office.
Three years after the Met Office uncovered that, and suspended Jones, they put out their own report named ”The Recent Pause in Warming where they wrote that – they’d prepared three papers on the fact
they knew
everybody else knew
they knew it hadn’t warmed since the mid 1990s. ”The 15 year pause in global warming since 1998.”
Three papers they put out, under the title ”The Recent Pause In Warming” from the same people who made Phil Jones confess he faked records for a dozen years.
Then your scientific leadership Mike Mann was caught claiming some trees had whispered to him the word was gonna end through a special ”climate math” computer program.
Then he told the same Congress that – no, they couldn’t see his program that made the trees whisper the world was ending
because the world might not end. And if the world didn’t end, he might need some money, since it didn’t, and he might have to sell his program that said the world was ending for a whole lot of money so- the world was going to end, but he couldn’t show Congress his ‘special program’ that told him the trees were whispering the world was going to end.
Then MIchael Mann forgot the ”trees are whispering the world will end’ program on an FTP server and a guy downloaded it, and made it available to everybody online who wanted it:
“Hey look everybody this ”special climate math”
makes HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of HOCKEY STICKS,
with calibration data.
So much for HIS AGW being real and potentially dangerous.
That same Mike Mann sued another man for telling everyobody what an inveterate fraudulet, professional grade liar he is – lying in the filing that he’d won a Nobel Prize, he DIDN’T WIN so the guy was
telling people a Nobel Prize laureate,
was a liar.
Then there was James Hansen with his horrific record keeping alongside Jones’ own destruction of global records as detailed in the program notes of the ”HarryReadMe.txt” file.
And there was James Hansen’s failure to ever face the fact instruments from Venus prove clearly his claim that the law of chemistry for calculating gas temperature doesn’t work, is so much high school phale level tripe.
The law of chemistry for calculating temperature of gas and atmospheric mixes works just fine. On earth in a jet motor or internal combustion or explosives or kilns or furnaces or refrigeration or vacuum drying it works just fine, yet the people you are here to claim inspired you – say the laws of thermodynamics don’t operate correctly for calculating temperature of gases and atmospheric mixes.
Then there’s the fact the tropospheric heating your scientific leadership’s claims is happening, isn’t being reported by the infrared astronomy field with every passing week: how the ever rising levels of Backerdistical Hotterism are Heaterizing their viewing.
Not a single word.
Not a single word from the optical astronomy field which has given birth to the space astronomy field for the very reason that night time atmospheric infrared is the energy which creates atmospheric wobble- the stars twinkling over your clueless head. Scintillation, the motion of the atmosphere in direct proportion to the amount of heat being added to it by the earth’s infrared.
Not a single word from the field that learn to computerize the warping of their telescope mirrors to X – out the wobble of the atmosphere due to night time heat created by earth-frequency energy emitted when the sun goes down, from the day’s heating.
Your capabilities as a scientific analyst are abysmal.
Your grasp of how easy it is to look around and simply check- is beyond abysmal you’re a lying political leg hump: worthless as anything but embarrassment someone, has to share the same dna.
We live by the laws of thermodynamics in chemistry in the scientific world. If you ever get able to answer some basic atmospheric chemistry questions RIGHT, you’ll be something more than a lying political hump.
You’ll be a willfully lying one.
Until you do I’ll leave others to draw their own analyses and conclusions as per their scientific capacity for checking a lying bullsh*tter’s ”pot’s like heroin, quick call the police on your parents” mental processes.
Plus the fact water rains out shortly means the evaporative phase change refrigeration system can rain out gigantic quantities of heat anytime that’s needed, in short order.
And you haven’t convinced anyone such as myself water does anything but cool the planet, when it’s all said and done. In liquid chilled form it’s many degrees colder than the exposed planetary surface.
It’s evaporation phase change refrigeration function as pointed out by you is highly swift and capable, delivering prodigious energy upward away from the surface to radiate it from an overall larger colder, combined earth/atmospheric mass.
And water’s the gas responsible for almost every bit of the interruption and scatter of earth bound infrared from the sun; the sun-side stream of energy in infrared alone, five times that of earth. All that sunlight not specifically pointed out in charts, blocked by the atmosphere, but not named as H20 or CO2 (or the blue skies of oxygen) is the white light reflected from the surface never to thermalize due to clouds, ice, snow, whitecaps of water and the natural screen of liquid water’s surface to a small quantity of infrared energy.
You’re a fake. The fact you’re a Democrat is as transparent and pure as your belief that pot’s like heroin because the government says so. Thanks to Democratic President FDR for that chemistry scam, now your failed candidate Al Gore’s running another chemistry scam using the government to stamp out competition in the oil business his dad left him stocks in. Occidental oil, the company that got all those fat contracts in Lybia when somebody funded Al Qaedas to whack Khaddaffi. Oh that’s right Hillary told us that it was time for him to go before henchmen from Al Gore’s oil company financed Islamic radicals took over Libya and Al got all those fat juicy oil contracts for his oil company.
Everything some people do is tainted with destruction of quality of life. For FDR it was getting sucked into WWII by getting Pearl Harbored and becoming the man who unleashed police force hell on innocent minority victims of the pot-is-heroin chemistry scam FDR brought the world.
For Al Gore it is providing threats of funding of suing the people who caught his environmental ‘consultant’ fraud friends – government employees.
You’re here to carry water for the ”pot is like heroin” chemistry scam people. Same Federal government, SAME FEDERAL and STATE PROSECUTORS PROSECUTING the VICTIMS OF the CHEMISTRY SCAMS,
Pfft you’re disgusting in the extreme for showing up here trying to tell everyone oil companies thought your quack pseudo science is real.
The records released show that BEFORE your leader HANSEN was OUT of HIGH SCHOOL N.A.S.A. knew that GHGE SCAM wasn’t REAL.
“Backerdistical Hotterism are Heaterizing”
Oh great, now I have coffee allover my monitor!
Thanks a heap!
By the way…great rant.
You made some excellent points.
I for one am sick of refuting the garbage that spews from the Wagen-troll, so thank you for taking the time.
Seriously.
“R Hargrove April 24, 2016 at 6:54 pm
Not a single word from the optical astronomy field which has given birth to the space astronomy field for the very reason that night time atmospheric infrared is the energy which creates atmospheric wobble- the stars twinkling over your clueless head. Scintillation, the motion of the atmosphere in direct proportion to the amount of heat being added to it by the earth’s infrared.”
People like Wagen etc simply cannot understand this fact which disproves the aCO2 driven AGW claim right off the bat!
R Hargrove:
Calm down my friend.
You come across as rather upset … and, of course, wilfully ignorant but that is expected on here.
“What is the name of the law of chemistry for solving temperature in gas and atmospheric mixes?
What’s it’s formula?
What do each one of the formula’s factors stand for?
Which of those is the Green House Gas Effect?”
The GHE is the reduction of transmittance of LWIR through the medium of the atmosphere and it occurs because of the vibratory characteristics of bi-atomic molecules.
This is the Law that states its effect ……..Beer-Lambert.
http://life.nthu.edu.tw/~labcjw/BioPhyChem/Spectroscopy/beerslaw.htm
Also ….
http://edberry.com/blog/climate-authors/raymond-pierrehumbert/infrared-radiation-and-planetary-temperature/
and
http://www.r744.com/assets/link/Identifying%20the%20Molecular%20Origin%20of%20Global%20Warming%5B1%5D.pdf
Phil Jones is not, and never has been employed by the UK Met Office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
And this is the numb and motivation for said rant I suspect.
“The fact you’re a Democrat is as transparent and pure as your belief that pot’s like heroin because the government says so. Thanks to Democratic President FDR for that chemistry scam”
I’ll leave my deconstruction of your rant to that, as the rest is so down the the rabbit-hole as to be incoherent.
Toneb,
You can’t wait more than 24 hours to answer. The test was immediate. Wagen failed by not answering.
Anyone could do a simple search and give the answers. But he didn’t even do that.
Speaking for myself, I’m a little upset at the alarmist crowd. Not one of you has any skepticism whatever. You all believe in the ‘dangerous AGW’ narrative, without a shred of credible evidence to support it.
Since you’re not skeptics, your beliefs are not science. Simple as that. They’re based on your eco-religion. Maybe you can find a blog that caters to eco-religionists. They’re out there, you know.
dbstealey:
“Speaking for myself, I’m a little upset at the alarmist crowd. Not one of you has any skepticism whatever. You all believe in the ‘dangerous AGW’ narrative, without a shred of credible evidence to support it.
Since you’re not skeptics, your beliefs are not science. Simple as that. They’re based on your eco-religion. Maybe you can find a blog that caters to eco-religionists. They’re out there, you know.”
Again this bizarre notion of “without a shred of credible evidence”.
No, I have said to you before that science has discovered and continues to that make that statement well beyond Caroll’s “rabbit-hole, along with overwhelming observational evidence backed up with the empirical science of the GHE. The models are NOT the science.
You will need to use Google scholar to alleviate that amazing misapprehension – or perhaps pull the odd meteorology/climatology text-book off the shelf of your local library – and no text-books are not wrong. You will never find an honest account of the science here (unless by me/Mosher/Leif via linking), of any other *contrarian* Blog (by definition).
As for me, I have no “belief” such as do you and most denizens here. I follow/know the science – you may remember I had a career with the UKMO.
And no, I am not sorry to pull the “appeal from authority” card as, well, you *may* have been taught science at school/Uni (or anything else for that matter).
And how did you learn?
From authority.
“can’t wait more than 24 hours to answer. The test was immediate. Wagen failed by not answering.”
Why should I want to answer such a rant? Demanding me to satisfy his ideas what a worthy discussion partner would be. You making up a 24h rule. Noticed internet is global? (Hint: sleep and work.) Beyond ridiculous it is.
He gave the WRONG ANSWER, db.
He gave the law that states how much light gets encountered in a path, has to do with the length of the path, and the concentration of the absorbent material.
He stepped up to help the other ignorant political hack and gave the WRONG answer.
He literally doesn’t know the answer to the first freshman high school chemistry question a teacher might ask at the beginning of the year to see who will need help and who’ll be giving answers.
He then tried to create deflection with YET ANOTHER toneb daily lie: that Phil Jones didn’t work for Met Office. Who he works for is irrelevant. He confessed twice to faking, fraudulently fabricating non existent data for a dozen years.
Who in the bureaucracy said tell him confess is what he’s writhing around in hot ashes about, as if he could deflect from the fact he was caught, busted, and admitted practicing fraud
as his way of life for a DOZEN years. Misleading WHO? “The scientific community” who would ”come down on him in no uncertain terms if he said the world cooled since 1998.”
He literally replied for that other fake Wagen and GAVE the WRONG ANSWER when asked if he even knows what LAW is used to calculate temperature of gas and atmospheric air in chemistry.
He then segues into ”My mind hurts from having to confront this so I am shutting down now” as he signs off his disastrously erroneous pass at Squid Squirting bullsh** so the other
FAKE could try to get away. That’s straight out of those ”real scammers uncovered” docmentaries where the reporter catches the scammer in the act, and the scammer stutters and stammers ”I…I can’t read any more of this, I don’t feel well, I can’t think,”
And the reporter says ”Are you ill?”’ To which the busted, flabbergasted scammer states ”I… I don’t feel well I can’t talk about this any more…” and then flees to then have the reporter tell the audience ”The scammer on this hidden camera was apprehended before he could get out of the parking lot by officers waiting in a nearby van.”
He rushed in where one FAKE had been caught running his fake trap, and catastrophically went on a
(1)being wrong
(2)trying to argue Met Office weren’t who hung Jones out to dry, when they were and everyone knows they were,
(3)confessing having to try to Squirt Bulls** to cover the other fake was making him mentally shut down because he lost the capacity to even read.
Well – we know he for sure is confused when he’s looking through Beer-Lambert for the formula to calculate air temperature.
He’s got darn good reason to be admitting the constant useless lying to strangers on the internet makes him shut down and become unable to even read. We all see it in action in here today and since he tried to squid squirt link ink all over so his fake political hack buddy could try to escape without more people laughing at him to his face.
R Hargrove,
Regarding your questions on the greenhouse “formula,” I’ll answer in part to point out that your questions are simplistic. They reflect a misunderstanding of the the physics and of the complexity of the system.
Q “What is the name of the law of chemistry for solving temperature in gas and atmospheric mixes?”
A It’s not chemistry at all. It is physics. It is a combination of effects.
Q “What’s it’s formula?”
A There are several “formulas” involved that are actually nonlinear differential equations. The solution is likely to be a numerical simulation based on a combination of radiant heat transport, convection, and normal barometric pressure / temperature calculations. The simulation must include the earth, the atmosphere, and the radiance from the sun.
Q “What do each one of the formula’s factors stand for?”
A It is too complicated to answer directly. Take some classes in math, physics, and heat transfer, then read articles about heat transport in the atmosphere. BTW, “factors” are multiplicative. You mean “terms.”
Q “Which of those is the Green House Gas Effect? ”
A The radiant heat transport component of the system. Do the simulation with and without radiant heat transport within the atmosphere. The “without” case can be done by changing the concentrations of the greenhouse gas components (CO2, H20, CH4, and others) to zero. Subtract the results. The difference is the greenhouse effect.
You will note that the greenhouse effect increases the temperature of the earth by about 33 C, from a hypothetical ice-ball (without the greenhouse effect) to current conditions. This is the total greenhouse effect. That is the easy part. To get the man-made component, you need to perform another simulation that has no man-made features. For example, CO2 would be reduced from 400 ppm (now) to 280 ppm (normal interglacial value), other gases would be accounted for such as methane and ozone, and other changes such as deforestation would also be considered. Be sure to account for all feedbacks including water vapor.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/full/399452a0.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014287/full
Wagen
>Yep, fossil fuel companies’ own scientists reported that AGW is real and potentially dangerous decades ago.
Rubbish. They could not have reported that AGW is real as no one had the information necessary to divine such a conclusion. At the most they could only have spoken of possibilities.
>>“and that there is a magic CO2 knob to set climate to a Utopian level.”
>No. You misunderstand the point. There is no utopian level. It is about the rate of change that could have dystopian consequences.
There is yet no evidence that rising CO2 caused by human activities causing any ‘rate of change’ that poses any threat that could be called ‘dystopian’. You are confusing ideas with speculation. I agree there is no utopian level, just that it should be a lot higher than it has been in the past 1000 years.
>>“The fact is atmospheric water vapor drives about 90 percent of the greenhouse gas effect.”
>Water rains out of the atmosphere on short time scales.
True, it does. And it is responsible for 90% of the greenhouse gas effect, I am sure you will agree.
>>“Schneiderman insults the intelligence of investors by suggesting they are unaware that climate change is the norm for all of geological time.”
>…They try to make a case about companies misleading investors, not about investors being stupid.
Investors were only ‘misled’ if a) the speculations about possible global warming caused by AG emissions from their fuel products were confirmed and b) this led or will lead at some future time to a loss by said investors. No one has demonstrated any loss from such an investment since 1970, for example. Further, it would have to be demonstrated that the investors in question were not already aware of such risks. As the alarmists have been crowing about these so-called risks since about 1980 it would be difficult for an investor to demonstrate that they lived in a bubble immune to the 24/7 cries of Climate Chicken Littles (CCLs).
>>“Climate change reality was the impetus for commodity futures hedging by providing financial cushions for unexpected crop failures.”
>Mixing weather with climate here. If climate were the cause of crop failures, the commodity futures market would collapse.
Collapse? Rubbish. Crop failures are caused by weather, one year at a time. Crop production has increased since the 1970’s in part because of the effect of CO2 fertilisation, some of which we assume is from the burning of the fuels provided by the supposed ‘misleader’. Will they be compensated for this contribution to food security? The commodities futures market will be more stable because of extra CO2 as farming is now more profitable than it was before the increase.
Catastrophic prognostications about future patterns of crop failure are prophetic puffery. All evidence from the past – 8500 years ago, for example – is that when global temperatures are higher, crop production is more stable and less susceptible to harm from cold weather – a major source of farming disaster even today (witness the NE USA fruit farm collapse from cold in 2014). Warmth is why early traceable civilisations thrived. The claim by alarmists that higher global temperatures, even if caused by increased by AG CO2, will lead to more droughts is contradicted both by history and common sense. Higher CO2 makes all plants more water-efficient. For each 1% of rise in CO2 there is in the dry lands of the Earth a 0.68% rise in average soil moisture. This change mitigates against crop failure. There is nothing for oil companies to answer for save local pollution (esp soil) and feeding massive bribes and kickbacks to the leaders of poor countries (Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Iraq…)
And thank you too Crispin, for taking the time.
Well said, sir!
“Warmth is why early traceable civilisations thrived.”
Ought to be etched on each and every forehead of the cAGW crowd.
Crispine quoted: “Yep, fossil fuel companies’ own scientists reported that AGW is real and potentially dangerous decades ago.
Rubbish. They could not have reported that AGW is real as no one had the information necessary to divine such a conclusion. At the most they could only have spoken of possibilities.”
From a story about the research done inside Exxon: “Using the models and data from a climate change report issued by Environment Canada, Canada’s environmental agency, the team concluded that the Beaufort Sea’s open water season — when drilling and exploration occurred — would lengthen from two months to three and possibly five months.”
That’s not a maybe, that is a definite.
Source: http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/
I would like to add that the “collapse of agriculture” could only happen if every farmer in the world is too stupid to shift from whatever he is planting now, to something that is more heat tolerant.
And that’s only if the worst case climate model scenarios actually happen. Under more realistic projections, there isn’t enough increase in heat to cause farmers to need to worry about what crops they should be planting.
“Rubbish. They could not have reported that AGW is real as no one had the information necessary to divine such a conclusion. At the most they could only have spoken of possibilities.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
“There is yet no evidence that rising CO2 caused by human activities causing any ‘rate of change’ that poses any threat that could be called ‘dystopian’.”
Leaving aside the specific issue you raise here (I am sure one could long discussions on that, but there appears to be a 24h limit here), my point was that the author misrepresented the issue.
“Investors were only ‘misled’ if a) the speculations about possible global warming caused by AG emissions from their fuel products were confirmed and b) this led or will lead at some future time to a loss by said investors.”
Have you noticed the problems coal companies have faced lately?
“Crop production has increased since the 1970’s in part because of the effect of CO2 fertilisation”
That would be mostly changes in agricultural practices. But again, the point I made was that the author was confusing weather and climate. Of course when AGW progresses agriculture will try to adapt, agreed.
OF COURSE Exxon/Mobile recognized the problem of “Climate Change” 40 years ago! Of course, 40 years ago, they called it “Global Cooling”, and worried about “nuclear winter”.
One thing you can always count on Wagen for. To repeat the lies he’s told to repeat.
If you would have actually read the documents in question, instead of blinding echoing what your handlers told you to believe, you would have known that all the documents stated was that the Exxon people recognized that CO2 was a greenhouse gas.
They state that all other things being equal, greenhouse gases would cause a slight warming of the earth.
They also state over and over again that there is so much uncertainty that nobody can say with any certainty that there is going to be a problem.
Wagen wrote: “Yep, fossil fuel companies’ own scientists reported that AGW is real and potentially dangerous decades ago.”
I think that is a little overstated. I don’t think the Exxon scientists define “real” in the same way you do.
(I thought the IPCC admitted to 95%. Am I wrong?)
Wagen, this fact sailed over your head. Or you’re completely unaware of radiative physics. Because your response is right up there with the guy who robbed a bank after smearing lemon juice on his face; he thought the bank teller couldn’t see him because lemon juice is used for invisible writing.
You do not seem to get the point. Snowball earth had not much water vapor, too cold. Warmer earth has more water vapour enhancing the warming. The short lifetime of water in the atmosphere however makes sure it cannot control climate.
Why? Because water vapor only appears once and then disappears?
What happens between 9 and 13 microns in the infrared every second of every day and has since time immemorial?
9 microns = 320K (116.33F)
13 microns = 220K (-63.67F)
Warmer air can hold more water vapour, but when too much water vapour is around it condenses into clouds, and eventually rains down. This is what I mean with short time scales and this really is basic and I assume you know this. In any case, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is considered a feedback. See e.g. NOAA:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php
You don’t understand what water vapor is (a gas) nor its effects. You ought to read what you linked to (NOAA) and attempt to understand it. That’s why your statement The short lifetime of water in the atmosphere however makes sure it cannot control climate is absurd.
Stupid or dishonest…the two are not mutually exclusive you know.
True, because even if one truly believes that CAGW is a proven fact and occurring right now all around us in all of it’s made up facets, it is still no crime to have a different view.
Vermont AG – Sorrell (standing on far right) – is going to be too busy prosecuting actual fraud to have time to project a pretend one –
“STATE FILES SUIT ALLEGING INVESTOR FRAUD AT JAY PEAK, INC. EB-5 PROJECTS”
http://governor.vermont.gov/node/2721
It has gotten to the point where liberal “Greenies” can no longer tell the difference between their lies and reality !
..Are-you-smarter-than-a-harvard-student
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4860536697001/are-you-smarter-than-a-harvard-student/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips
“Hampton Roads is sinking irrespective of climate change.” No no it is all CO2 evil! ;(
Warmist are the newest incarnation of the Mafia, silk suits and all!
So who drove up insurance rates based on the “new normal” of atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming/climate change? Who lied there and hid all of the uncertainies? When are those officials going to be prosecuted?
Rates went up because of two really bad hurricane years in a row in 2004 and 2005.
Insurance rates are based on an evaluation of risk and cost, and costs had increased dramatically when insurable losses skyrocketed.
Besides, proposed changes in insurance rates must be approved by regulators, and they were, so the insurers have complete cover.
Not saying that the scientists did anyone any favors by immediately declaring the amounts and severity of the storms during those two outlier years to be the new normal.
I am still not over what Judith Curry did to Dr. Grey, although at least she has since made some attempts at making amends for past wrongs committed. It is also worth noting she has had little company amongst her peers in doing so, so her willingness to change her mind is doubly to her credit.
But back to insurance rates, the only thing insurers have to go on is risk based on past losses, and those past losses became much larger all of a sudden-like. No one knows how many or how few storms there will be in the future, or how severe they may be, or where they will hit.
But the fact that all of the damaged areas were built up bigger and more expensively than ever as quickly as possible, and that coastal building has exploded in recent years, means that insurers still have to face the prospects of daunting losses.
And on top of everything else, the cost of homes and real estate in general has skyrocketed since that time…after a dip during the downturn, prices are now higher than ever in most areas.
And it may well be that the law of averages will mean that over the coming years and decades, we will see more storms and more damage than most people alive have ever witnessed. In fact, with la nina conditions predicted by sometime this summer, I would almost bet that a lot of people are going to have a bad year somewhere or other. I plan to buy a new garage door and a whole house generator before August, when the tropics typically begin to ramp up if they are going to.
Fingers crossed.
Hey, as an aside…if you think insurance companies are cleaning up, do what I did when fuel and materials went through the roof…buy stock in those companies. It may be the wrong year to buy an insurance company though.
Yeah, that sounds pretty serious to me! Think of all those poor people paying outrageous rates for nothing!
The insurance companies say: “Never mind.”
“While supporting plans to lower CO2 emissions, Herring neglects the CO2 emitted by Virginia’s beer and wine industries.”
It’s a great post and makes some very important points but for the sake of accuracy, we should make a distinction between surface emissions and fossil fuel emissions because AGW is a theory that fossil fuel emissions have introduced an “extraneous” source of carbon that was deep below the ground and sequestered from the surface-atmosphere carbon cycle. this argument cannot be applied to the current account of the carbon cycle such as emissions from beer and wine fermentation and those from burning wood. or even to the man-made forest fires in indonesia because these are purely surface phenomena.
but of course i very strongly agree with his statement that the alleged relationship between fossil fuel emissions and climate change presented by climate science is spurious.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
Leaving aside the particulars of where and by how much sea level is rising, or how much more or less the climate is changing in recent years than versus the historical norm, the headline question is a very important one: Are these people and other of their ilk lying or simply mistaken in their beliefs re CAGW?
Yet another important question is how the hell these people think that, whatever the actual case may be, people who hold differing opinions on a scientific question are somehow committing a crime?
No matter how you slice it, this is some f*cked up sh*t.
Menicholas wrote: “Yet another important question is how the hell these people think that, whatever the actual case may be, people who hold differing opinions on a scientific question are somehow committing a crime?”
Well, some of them, are true believers, who are convinced that the home planet and everyone living on it is in imminent danger from CO2 unless we do something immediately and they see those who disagree with this theory as obstructionists, and in this case their obstructionism will lead to countless human deaths in the near future. It scares them so bad they want to throw dissenters in jail.
I can see how they can be caught up in the CAGW scam. They have NASA and NOAA telling them so. NASA and NOAA wouldn’t lie. Especially about something as important as this. So who are these skeptics that are attacking the good folks at NASA and NOAA who are only doing their job and trying to save the Earth and the children.
I think that is how a sincere but uninformed/deluded person would look at it.
The non-True Believers, the ones who know it is a scam or don’t care, just use the CAGW scam as a way to forward their political or personal agenda, at the expense of the people living on this planet.
I just really found out what Forrest Gump really meant when he kept saying ” Stupid is as stupid does”
These guys actually do “stupid does”…
I propose the creation of a new logical test, in the similar vein to Occam’s Razor. It is:
The di Caprio – Baldwin Razor: It’s defines the likelihood of a given view of a topic being correct as the inverse of the number of celebrities such Leonardo di Caprio and Alec Baldwin agreeing with it.
Trick question?
The legal action proposed appears to arise from a sense of frustration among some people that , despite numerous international conferences , thousands of papers , the pleading of celebrated scientists and even more celebrated theatrical performers , over more than 30 years , nothing much seems to have happened.
That is revealing.
I remember how , during the period of atmospheric bomb tests in the 50s worry grew about a rise in radioactive fallout. It led in just a few years to a ban on atmospheric tests, directed by agreement between the 2 main global powers , USA and USSR who had no great love for each other to put it mildly.
Similarly the scare about ozone depletion , whether or not justified in retrospect , led very quickly to a global ban on the use and manufacture of certain halogenated hydrocarbons (except in China) .
The fact that despite all the well orchestrated hysteria about climate change the people of the world and their leaders have only slowly introduced changes in the use of fossil fuels shows how little we all really believe in the dangers from the use of these materials , compared to the problems that result from banning them.
When there is a real perceived problem the world reacts quite quickly.
When there is no real perceived problem the world does not and that must infuriate some fanatics.
Tough.
People do not need nuclear tests to survive.
People can easily find substitutes for chloroflourocarbons…hell a pump sprayer bottle of Nice-N-Easy holds my hair in place just as well as an aerosol can of it does, and the air conditioner people made out quite well indeed on the transitions to other refrigerants…they laughed all the way to the bank and it is no surprise they were on board.
But when you talk about fossil fuels and CO2, you are talking about the lifeblood of the entire world economy and the prosperity of every human on the planet, and about the molecule that, along with water, makes life itself possible.
So that those comparisons fall flat…there is absolutely no equivalence.
Mods., I posted two comments last night, including a reply here, that seemed to have disappeared as soon as I hit the send button. Anything stuck in moderation?
Thanks!
You have made one point very clearly. Bloggers lie too, as does anyone who remains steadfastly ignorant of vast scientific community concurrence that global warming IS real and IS caused by CO2 emissions and IS being corraborated by ever more observable FACTS. Citing localized sea level changes affected by subsidence must be your new pet red herring. However it ignores the much more pervasive effects and growing theat of documented global ocean warming.
Wow! Seems likely this will get lost among the tangentials, but that fits too. Idle conversation in the kitchen while your house is burning down.
I hear lots of ranting and raging, but you did not provide even one proven FACT !
Lpalmer is completely wrong that there is any evidence of an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.
I am at work though and will not have time to refute this posted comment until later.
L Palmer commented: “… vast scientific community concurrence that global warming IS real and IS caused by CO2 emissions and IS being corraborated by ever more observable FACTS. …”
Concurrence is not proof. Name one “observable fact”.
@markl
“Concurrence is not proof.”
Of course not. The words “concurrence” and “proof” have different meanings. The concurrence is on the body of evidence, which is not proof, per se. “Proof” is difficult to establish in natural science, which is normally about estimates of uncertainty or confidence intervals. Even when scientists are quite sure of something, they couch it carefully in terms of confidence.
“Name one “observable fact”.”
You want facts? I can give you several Theories, which is a science word for a hypothesis about which there is strong agreement, like plate tectonics, evolution, or general relativity. Since some uncertainty is inevitable, strong theories are the best one can do.
CO2 concentration is now at 400 ppm (measured accurately) vs. 280 ppm, the value at several interglacial peaks (reconstructed with ice cores) over 700,000 years or more. Not proof, but strong theory. The recent difference, 120 ppm (a 40% increase from the interglacial values), is man made. Also strong theory.
CO2 causes warming via the greenhouse effect, which is based on old and accepted physics. Other gases and various feedbacks such as the water vapor feedback (a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2) are a part of the greenhouse effect. Strong theory.
The earth would be around 33C colder now (an ice ball) if it were not for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Strong theory. Proof that the greenhouse effect works.
The surface temperature record shows that the temperature anomaly now is about 1.2 C above the 20th century average, and it is rising steeply now. Surface temperatures are more accurate than satellite temperatures. Strong theory.
Calculations with many climate models show that natural effects alone cannot explain the global warming that has occurred, but natural plus human effects can. There is a strong consensus among scientists that this is true with 95%confidence. Check this 26 minute video from the National Academies of Science, “Climate Change: Lines of Evidence.”
See also this news article based on the IPCC AR5 reports that explains the relative contributions of various human and other factors.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans
Peter Smith commented:
“The words “concurrence” and “proof” have different meanings. The concurrence is on the body of evidence, which is not proof, per se.
Correct, what’s your “evidence”?
“You want facts? I can give you several Theories….”
Theories are not facts by definition.
“CO2 concentration…Strong theory.”
Just as I thought, you have no empirical evidence that CAGW will be caused by using fossil fuels. Historical climate records and reconstruction prove the current climate is all part of natural variability…..that’s proof/evidence/fact.
“The surface temperature record shows that the temperature anomaly now is about 1.2 C above the 20th century average, and it is rising steeply now.”
Not true, just repeating misinformation like that doesn’t make it true. No statistical rise in global temperature for the last twenty years. In fact there’s a discernible drop from norm. You can’t ignore it.
“Calculations with many climate models .”
The models have consistently proven to be inaccurate yet you cling to them. Why?
When it comes to “climate change”, the primary thing to remember is that all of the argument concerns MATHEMATICAL MODELS, which are of only limited utility. All of the argument concerns how closely we expect the models to follow actual conditions in the future.
The problem is that the models don’t do a particularly good job of predicting the future. We keep discovering that there is some factor or another that wasn’t included in the model, and which turns out to have been important, and THAT’S why the model didn’t “work”. The main fact is that none of the current models can “predict” the current conditions when programmed with historical data.
It doesn’t help the cause any when the proponents of “anthropogenic climate change” are hiding their source data and then lying about it. And then when the raw data turns out not to support their theories, they jump on to some different theory.
“Just as I thought, you have no empirical evidence”
I laid it out for you, step by step, in my previous post. Since you made no comment on any of my scientific points or either of the two videos, I assume that you either did not read / watch them or you did not understand them. If you choose to ignore the information I give you, that is your business, but don’t make false claims about me.
“Theories are not facts by definition.”
I already explained to you the science terminology of “theory” vs. “fact.” In science, theory is a strong consensus on a hypothesis, confirmed by evidence, with no substantial arguments against it. If you chose to ignore science terminology, that is your business, and I can’t help you. Your previous post was also based on inaccurate language, as I tried to explain, but it fell on deaf ears.
Before you get started on it again, I am well aware of the anti-science argument that works as follows:
“You have no empirical evidence”
“Models are wrong. They are unacceptable as evidence.”
and then, since models are disallowed,
“Correlations do not prove anything. There could be other causes.”
“Since no models and no correlations are allowed, no evidence is acceptable.”
The fact is that the body of evidence is very strong in several self-consistent areas. Models are used in all science. What you are missing completely is a rigorous assessment of uncertainty. Without that, your argument basically says that all science is wrong, which is ridiculous.
The bottom line is, you are only mincing words. You have no scientific argument, and I gather you never will have one. End of discussion for me.
Peter Smith commented : “…. End of discussion for me….”
There was a discussion? LOL
Peter Smith says:
I can give you several Theories, which is a science word for a hypothesis about which there is strong agreement, like plate tectonics, evolution, or general relativity.
You misunderstand what a theory is. Your definition makes it a consensus (“strong agreement”).
There is a hierarchy in science: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law.
They all have one thing in common: they must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. If they can’t repeatedly and accurately predict, then that (conjecture, or hypothesis, theory, etc.) must be discarded; it was falsified by its failure to accurately predict.
That requirement doesn’t mean a ‘theory’ is valid, it only means it is not summarily rejected because of its inability to make accurate, repeated predictions.
Being capable of making repeated, accurate predictions is essential. But it isn’t enough. ‘Epicycles’ was a widely accepted theory that worked. It explained the retrograde motion of the planets. Very accurately, too. But Kepler falsified the theory of epicycles.
The so-called ‘theory’ that CO2=cAGW is really only a conjecture, and a shaky one at that. It cannot accurately predict. No one was able to predict the most significant global temperature event of the past century; the fact that global warming stopped for almost 20 years, while CO2 continued to steadily rise.
AGW may well exist. But if so, it is simply too minuscule to measure; there are no verified, empirical, testable measurements that quantify AGW. Therefore, AGW is a non-problem. It is too small to matter, because it is too small to measure.
@dbstealey
“There is a hierarchy in science: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law. ”
Not at all. Laws are simple relationships, like Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Theories are more complex and often encompass Laws. The Theory of General Relativity encompasses and supersedes Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and is much more powerful, predicting all manner of things for which Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation fails. You may appreciate this (or not):
“Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated.”
“… it is simply too minuscule to measure; there are no verified, empirical, testable measurements that quantify AGW.”
AGW is a complicated theory, not a Law. It cannot be proven or disproved by a simple measurement. It is the body of evidence that counts, not a measurement. I posted a video, “Climate Change: Lines of Evidence” in another post. Play it. Your empty assertions do not discredit the evidence.
Also, on the question of “miniscule”, if you think that 2 C is miniscule, consider this. It is not a few balmy days we are talking about. It is the fact that the earth and its climate are not uniform. It is extreme conditions of all kinds that arise from small changes in the global average temperature.
Over 10,000 climate scientists, nearly 200 science societies world wide, and 195 countries think that AGW is significant, it will be much more significant by the end of this century, and we must reduce CO2 emissions. So, basically, it is the world against you.
Peter Smith says:
End of discussion for me.
Then I guess there must be two Peter Smiths. They’re both wrong, so I’ll treat them as the same.
Smith says:
AGW is a complicated theory, not a Law.
Ho-hum. Wrong. AGW is only a conjecture. It cannot make accurate predictions, therefore it is a failed conjecture. And there’s nothing complicated about it. Your problem is that you cannot produce any verifiable, empirical, testable measurements quantifying AGW. But don’t feel bad, no one else can, either.
Next:
…if you think that 2 C is miniscule…
Pure deflection. The ‘minuscule’ refers to the effect of human CO2 emissions.
And:
Over 10,000 climate scientists…&etc.
I doubt if there are 10,000 climate scientists on the planet. If there are, do you have a roster, with CV’s?
No? I didn’t think so. You were just winging it, and got caught.
However, there are more than 30,000 professionals, all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s, who say that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. That Trumps your imaginary “10,000 climate scientists”.
And unlike your imaginary number, I can name all 31,000.
Finally, you end with the old ‘appeal to corrupted authorities’ fallacy, and follow it with a non sequitur:
“we must reduce CO2 emissions.”
Why? You cannot produce a single example of any global damage, or harm, caused by the rise in CO2. But I can produce solid evidence showing that more CO2 is beneficial. CO2 is “harmless” (QED), and it is beneficial. Thus, your argument fails.
@dbsdtealey
You said:
“However, there are more than 30,000 professionals, all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s, who say that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. That Trumps your imaginary “10,000 climate scientists”.
And unlike your imaginary number, I can name all 31,000.”
To which I respond:
LOL. The Oregon Petition Project is possibly the most dishonest “poll” ever conducted. First, the only requirement to respond was a BS. No expertise in climate science was needed or wanted. The were only 39 Climate scientists out of 31,487 signatories. Second, climate science skeptics / deniers were self-selected as the only ones who *could* respond. There was no place to voice a pro-AGW opinion. Look at the Petition Project web site to see how it is worded. It is disgraceful.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
They could have obtained a million signatures by this obviously biased method, and it would still have been meaningless.
See also this article debunking the Oregon Petition. Unfortunately it does not address the self-selection issue, which is the most important nail in its coffin.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-basic.htm
There is also this, a 2016 paper “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming” by 16 authors. This is a journal article that reinforces all of the prior scientifically-conducted consensus estimates and refutes Tol’s arguments against them.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Yes, yes, I know. Your next step will be to refer to attempted debunking of Cook’s 2013 paper. There is not one such attempt that does not rely in elementary errors in arithmetic or logic. Don’t bother. I have seen them all.
You quibble about the number 10,000 (which I think is about correct), but it doesn’t really matter what the number is. I don’t care. You fail to address the main part of my argument, which is that virtually all science societies and countries in the world support AGW and think it is a problem that needs to be solved, per COP21. You are merely deflecting and twisting words.
Peter Smith,
Of course you would deflect to your baseless assertions regarding the OISM co-signers. Thanx for your opinion, but in fact, every co-signer was vetted. They had to have a degree in the hard sciences. You avoided that, because your bogus “10,000 climatologists” don’t exist. Not even close. (Name a thousand — if you can).
I challenge you to post the names of even ten percent of the OISM co-signers’ numbers, who contradict or dispute the OISM statement.
Of course, you’ll fail that challenge. So I’ll make it ten times easier: post the names of only one percent of the OISM numbers; scientists and/or engineers who have contradicted the OISM statement. They don’t have to be climatologists, because there aren’t that many climatologists in the entire world. Anyone with a degree in the hard sciences will do.
So, can you name them? If so, I concede. If not, you lose. And since you’re getting your misinformation from ‘skepticalscience’, there’s no way you can win based on honest science.
Next, I don’t have to debunk Cook, he’s done it to himself. Peer reviewed papers have been published debunking his ridiculous “97%” claim, and those papers have never been refuted. That’s good enough for me, and you’ll understand why I don’t read any links from that neo-Nazi’s blog.
Finally, all the alarmist cult has is their constant ‘appeal to corrupt authorities’ logical fallacies. That fallacy works on weak minds; on people who don’t think for themselves. It’s just another form of the ‘scientific consensus’ fallacy. I’ve shown that the true ‘consensus’, for whatever that’s worth in science (nothing), is heavily on the side of skeptics of the “dangerous man-made global warming” scare. If I’m wrong, you will have no problem posting more than 31,000 names. If you can, you’ve got the consensus on your side.
So you have your challenge: post the names of more than 310 scientists (1% of 31,000) who contradict what the OISM statement says.
I don’t think you can do it. Prove me wrong.
You are repeating yourself. Vetted? LOL. The only vetting was the ability of the signatories to check a box. Regardless of that utterly irrelevant point, you can’t deny that this set of signers was culled, by the wording of the petition, to consist only of “skeptics.” The list of them is, by definition, a list of 31,000 skeptics. That proves nothing. Turn it around, and you could just as easily come up with a list of 31,000 “warmists.” That list would be equally meaningless. You have nothing to offer. Give it up.
“So you have your challenge: post the names of more than 310 scientists (1% of 31,000) who contradict what the OISM statement says.
I don’t think you can do it. Prove me wrong.”
LOL! Why would anybody be interested in doing that? I have an idea: why don’t you do it? Then you could submit a paper to Nature Climate offering a proof that there are 100 times as many skeptics as there are warmists. You
Peter Smith failed my challenge by tucking tail and running from it. He got so flustered he couldn’t even finish a thought! ☺
I have to LOL at the impotent raving of someone who doesn’t have any credible facts to support his assertions. Yes, the 31,000+ co-signers were vetted, every one of them, and they had to voluntarily download the OISM statement, sign it, affix postage, and mail it in — no emails accepted.
More than 31,000 scientists had to go out of their way to express their opinion. How does that compare with the un-named, mythical “consensus” that Smith hangs his hat on? Smith can’t even name 300 scientists who dispute the OISM statement.
Every claim by the alarmist crowd has been so thoroughly debunked that all they have left are baseless assertions; opinions that don’t hold water.
Skeptics of the falsified “dangerous AGW” narrative have won every argument, based on verified observations, and on the failure of the alarmist cult to produce any credible measurements quantifying AGW.
Finally: alarmists are not scientific skeptics. Not one of them has any skepticism. They all insist that everyone should believe their talking points, and they get upset when skeptics question them.
Tough noogies. Either you go by the rules of the Scientific Method, or you don’t. Complaining that people are skeptical of your conjecture is a waste of time.
You have made one point very clearly. Posters lie too, as does anyone who remains steadfastly ignorant of vast scientific community concurrence that localized subsidence IS real and IS NOT caused by CO2 emissions and IS being corraborated by ever more observable FACTS.
Sea levels have been rising for 22,000 yrs. Land masses have gone up, down, or stayed the same, depending on location. These need to be taken into account when discussing and quantifying sea level rise.
You seem not to be aware of this, nor do you seem to know what a red herring is. So what subjects do they teach you at Troll University?
“Idle conversation while your house is burning down….”
My house seems to be just fine … leave me and my house alone.
It seems as though you want me to take the garden hose into the house and soak everything, so as avoid the possibility of flare-ups in the immediate future … and if I don’t then you or your friends will do it for me.
Temperatures rising 0.7C over the last 150 years, is the equivalent to your house burning down?????
PS: Most scientists agree that at least half of that warming is caused by things not known as CO2.
L Palmer
Wow. About time somebody showed up here who obviously knows everything.
Please give us some testable (you know, with “real” Mother Nature type data) predictions so that those of us blinded by your brilliance can actually measure & track these “observable FACTS” (i.e.: exactly when do I need to sell my beachfront property?).
PS: We promise not to ask philosophical questions like:
1) Why can’t you guys ever get the data “right”, even after n-number of revisions?
2) Why isn’t it OK for the world to warm up a little bit after the last little ice age?
3) Why don’t your grad student’s models ever get more accurate?
4) If CO2 really is the primary predictor of earth temp increases, why don’t your grad student’s models do a better job of forecasting?
5) When you guys change/revise/clean/homogenize temp data without changing CO2 data, what does that do to CO2 sensitivity in grad student models?
6) What happened to the guy who claimed polar bears are endangered when real experts say there are twice as many as there were in 1950? Did he get tenure yet?
7) What’s the status of the Jagadish Shula climate audit at George Mason U? This guy isn’t stealing from us taxpayers, is he?
Basically this amounts to a secular Inquisition. “Anybody who disagrees with us is a lying heretic, and should be punished.” The punishment – forfeiture of freedom of speech – is totally autocratic and medieval.
Again: “The difference between Progressivism and Tyranny is Marketing.”
And in the spirit of the Catholic Inquisition…I wondering when someone will suggest that the only suitable punishment for the climate change deniers is burning at the stake?
Seriously speaking…did anyone ever envision a day, when challenging the climate change trope would lead to demands that deniers be imprisoned?
“Are these politicians lying or just stupid?”
They’re lying AND they’re stupid.
Most of the leaders of the global warming movement are rich and getting richer. Some are very rich. I can’t think of a single “poor” leader of AGW. I don’t think that stupid people can achieve this.
Personally, I think lawsuits against the oil and gas industries would be a good thing. The defendants would have broad subpoena and discovery powers, they could cross examine the states’ expert witnesses, they could subpoena the alarmist scientists and put them under oath, etc. Truth would out. The trouble with the M. Mann vs. M. Steyn case is that Mann was able to stall the process. But a high profile, high stakes State of New York vs Exxon type case would be more visible and Exxon could afford (well, maybe not gladly) an army of lawyers, an advantage that Mark Steyn does not have. I do not know New York’s rules of civil procedure regarding what the court can accept in terms of judicial notice, but it is something that a big company can afford to take on. I say “Bring ’em on!”
+1 That’s why it will never get to the discovery phase. I’m betting the litigants will be encouraged by the Alarmists to drop the case because it would expose their subterfuge at the least and their downright lies at the most.
Of course the oil industry relies on geological knowledge and every geologist knows that Climate Change IS the status quo throughout earth history.
Sadly l, I know a number of geologist that have partaken of that Kool
aid !
“Are these politicians lying or just stupid?”
Wrong question, should be “Are these politicians lying AND just stupid?”, answer is yes.