Yes… I know entropy falls under the Second Law of Thermodynamics… But I doubt the author of the Clean Technica article does. [Author’s note: By “falls under the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I don’t mean decreases; I mean it falls under the “jurisdiction” of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.]
Guest ridicule by David Middleton
Among today’s Real Clear Energy headlines, almost totally unrelated to energy: What Will Persuade Conservatives To Fight Climate Change?
Carolyn Fortuna, one of CleanTechnica’s energy industry and climate science experts (AKA a sustainability blogger), has put forth a list of six reasons conservatives should fight climate change…
Reason #1: To Fight Climate Change is to Negate a Serious Threat to Global Security
Ms. Fortuna cites a report from The Center for Climate & Security, a warmunist activist group composed mostly of Obama-era retired military brass, including Rear Admiral David W. Titley, USN (Ret). This group was addressed recently in another post.
The gist of the latest Center for Climate & Security is that sea level rise is an existential threat to coastal military facilities, which are quite often naval bases… frequently hosting “ships and/or submarines.’ Some of the latest climate modeling indicates that ships and submarines may be able to adapt to sea level rise.
It is also thought that Marine Amphibious Groups may also handle sea level rise fairly well. A question for Ms. Fortuna: Which is worse for an amphibious assault? Rising or falling sea level? (Think tides).
Honestly, if this threatens our war-fighting capabilities, we have bigger problems than climate change…
I thought about posting this image at the same scale as an Arleigh Burke Class DDG (figuring a Nimitz Class CVN was overkill), but since I already had an image of global sea level rise plotted at the same scale as the Statue of Liberty, I figured it conveyed the same message…
Addendum
Sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay area, home of the massive Norfolk Naval Station, is mostly due to subsidence of the land.
- USGS Circular 1392 Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region
- Relative Sea Level Trend 8638610 Sewells Point, Virginia
Subsidence is not due to climate change… At least not due to recent climate change.
If the Navy has a climate change problem, it’s the fact that their newest class of warships, Littoral Combat Ships, have trouble with ice…
Reason #2: Many Republican-Held Districts are Already Experiencing the Effects of Climate Change
Many Republican-held districts are also already experiencing the effects of plate tectonics, entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For that matter, every Republican-held district has been experiencing the effects of climate change for a very long time… And it was all good up until 1988, apart from the Dust Bowl.
What changed in 1988? Al Gore & Jimbo Hansen invented Gorebal Warming.
Reason #3: Respected Republican Elders are Promoting Carbon Dividends
Republican party elders James A. Baker III and George P. Schultz formed a new organization in 2017 to build political support for the carbon dividend proposal, and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) have joined in with their support. Calling themselves the Climate Leadership Council, the group has outlined a 4-point plan:
- A gradually rising tax on carbon dioxide emissions, to be implemented at the refinery or the first point where fossil fuels enter the economy
- All proceeds from this carbon tax would be returned to the American people on an equal and monthly basis
- Border adjustments for the carbon content of both imports and exports would protect American competitiveness and punish free-riding by other nations, encouraging them to adopt carbon pricing of their own
- Elimination of regulations that are no longer necessary upon the enactment of a rising carbon tax
Not just no… But… NO FRACKING WAY!!!
- Respected Republican Elders? Two fossilized RINO’s, the State Swamp Critter of Mississippi and a Loosiana Democrat??? WTF???
- “All proceeds from this carbon tax would be returned to the American people on an equal and monthly basis”… Does anyone really believe this? The government will p!$$ that money away faster than they collect it.
- $45/ton = $.40/gallon of gasoline and other economically destructive nonsense.
- A real-world discount rate zeroes out all “benefits” of a carbon tax.
Figure 3 from Nordhaus (2017), modified by author. A linear extrapolation of Nordhaus’ discount rate plot implies that a 7% discount rated would zero-out the social cost of carbon. Discounting Away the Social Cost of Carbon: The Fast Lane to Undoing Obama’s Climate Regulations. As a default position, OMB Circular A-94 states that a real discount rate of 7 percent should be used as a base-case for regulatory analysis. The 7 percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy… https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/OMB%20Circular%20No.%20A-4.pdf
Reason #4: It’s All about Politics, Stupid
Fixed it for Ms. Fortuna:
Reason #4: It’s All about Politics, Stupid… and…
Reason #5: Clean Energy Creates Jobs
So does hiring thousands of people with brooms rather than a couple of snowplows to clear the streets of snow. Note to Ms. Fortuna: The energy industry is NOT a jobs program.
Reason #6: The Millennials Want Clean Energy, & Conservatives Want the Millennial Vote
Who fracking cares what millennials want? This is like saying they want unicorns in a fossil fueled world.
When asked about their clean energy desires (unicorn fantasies) are they also asked if they’re cool with a 20-300% tax on their energy consumption? Note to Ms. Fortuna… That escalating $.40/gal tax on gasoline will be passed on to millennials’ Uber bills. The 56% tax on natural gas and 297% tax on coal will hit them right in their iPhone chargers.
Millennials are an energy dichotomy. They are more likely to be “Green Champions” *and* be “Savings Seekers” than the over-35 crowd…
Apparently, they want to have their energy cake and eat it too.
Yeah!!! Anthony has the comment system fixed.
Almost fixed:
We still need the navigation tool, the upvote/downvote, and the comment window at the top.
Also everytime I post, the the new format requires scrolling back down the un-nested comments to look for where I was just prior to the making a comment.
I use a new Android based phone.
How’s this: to quote George Carlin, the people this MIss Fortune (pun intended) is squawking about don’t really care about the planet, not in the abstract. Not at all. They want their own habitat. A clean space. Everything she is squawking about is on “the list” because it’s trending and she has to write a paper to get grant money.
See how easy that was?
nope. spoke too soon. darn.
I have become convinced that the Climate Fear Mongers simply don’t understand the industrial scale of modern society. They have a belief that everything can be changed to local food sources, employee-owned businesses, renewable energy sources etc.
The reality is that to feed and cloth and keep the many billions of people on the planet we need industrial scale solutions. And energy wise that means reliable large-scale base load from big hydro, nuclear, coal or gas. And for transportation, that means oil for the foreseeable future.
A good many greens are Arcadian Socialists who think a vastly reduced population (not including themselves as the population to be reduced) and “simple” technology (except for what they actually understand they use) will be adequate in their roles as a Leninist Green Vanguard to make sure the proles do as little environmental damage as possible.
Yeah, but ask ’em to give up those iPhones, computer games, air travel, 3 tons of eclectic clothing choices, MRI machines for their owwies, and all the Whole Foods they can eat! Which of course would fly into their private space by unicorn–powered transport, right? How many of them have ever chopped wood in a blizzard to start a fire and heat a cup of coffee? Oh, and how would those coffee beans get there for that matter?
These people talk like 12-year-old children who’ve never had a responsibility, paid a bill, worked for a paycheck or owned ANYTHING. The real question is why anyone pays attention to such a ridiculous, non-workable POV.
Ever heard of that show Naked and Afraid? I’m all for dropping them off in the wilderness naked with nothing but a stone axe/knife and telling them we’ll be back in a couple years. If they actually survive that long they are welcome back into society, I’m pretty damn sure they’ll be very appreciate energy at the point. Secondary benefit is they’ll likely no longer be anti 2nd amendment.
Maybe we should all get a turn with your Naked and Afraid scenario. I could use a 2 year vacation…
Also, they would have to drop the idea that rewording a press release (AKA “journalism”) is a job.
In a low tech world, you can’t have many fake useless “jobs”.
“Stuart Lynne September 17, 2018 at 5:36 pm
And for transportation, that means oil for the foreseeable future.”
Many Greenie types believe hydrogen is the future for transport however, they don’t understand that the high school lab experiment can’t do the job on an industrial scale because stripping hydrogen from water requires massive amounts of energy to produce, it’s a very “dirty” process, ie, lots of emissions of CO2 (I don’t believe wind and/or solar could generate enough energy to do the job). It can’t be kept liquefied at usual air temperatures and pressures and when it is in gaseous form it leaks out everywhere easily. So, the best fuel for transport is derived from oil.
Worse, liquid hydrogen leaks directly THROUGH the steel walls of the pipes and tanks used for all other liquid fuels (forgetting the cryogenic-class steels and welding and valves and gaskets and insulation specifically required at those pressures or temperatures).
and it tends to ‘splode alot when it leaks … a Hindenburg in every garage is not a winning campaign slogan …
A Tesla Hindenburg has a nice ring to it.
it tends to ‘splode alot when it leaks
Actually it doesn’t, when hydrogen leaks it diffuses very rapidly such that a combustible mixture isn’t maintained. Unlike gasoline for example. Town gas was distributed to most homes in the UK for a century, it includes about 50% H2, the problem with leaks was not explosions (it was actually poisoning due to the CO in the gas). When natural gas replaced town gas in the 70s explosions due to leaks of natural gas in houses started to occur (methane tends to maintain a flammable mixture compared with hydrogen). As a result the whole distribution system was updated, the old cast iron pipes tended to leak, my local gas distribution company replaced the pipes to my house recently for the same reason. One of the accounts of the recent explosions in Mass. suggested old pipes were a possible cause, that’s more likely to happen with methane than hydrogen.
It dissipates, but only if your car is parked outside.
The
Hindenburg did not “explode”. It did however burn very fast, mostly due to the fact that it was painted with an aluminum based paint that was chemically very similar to solid rocket fuel.
It dissipates, but only if your car is parked outside.
It would have to be a remarkably well sealed garage to hold hydrogen in, the biggest problem when working with hydrogen is keeping it in.
Even worse than you mention is that Hydrogen embrittles the metal as is diffuses through it.
This causes the material to become more brittle and develop cracks as forces/loads cycle from pressure and normal use.
https://www.nace.org/Corrosion-Central/Corrosion-101/Hydrogen-Embrittlement/
Brittle pipes in a high vibration environment.
Not a good mixture.
Probably the best way to LIMIT fossil fuel use in transportation is through reorganizing society vertically. Living, working, shopping, entertainment all in the same building thereby vastly reducing the need to drive anywhere as most necessities could be tended to with a simple elevator trip
Provided all the material eveybody could ever want could be delivered (by fossil fuels) directly to the elevator door.
As long as everything everybody ever wanted could fit through the elevator door.
As long as somebody else didn’t want to use that same elevator.
As long as the power and all the electronics to control the elevator lasted so the elevator, the elevator door, and the lights worked every time everybody wanted them to.
As long as no crook, cheater, or rapist wanted to use the elevator.
As long as every person in every family above you, below you, beside you, and across from you lived exactly the same way you lived and was just as nice and polite and helpful and quiet and perfect every minute of every day of every year as you are.
There are elevators large enough to deliver a car so pretty much everything you could want could fit in an elevator
RACookPE1978 September 17, 2018 at 9:36 pm
Provided all the material eveybody could ever want could be delivered (by fossil fuels) directly to the elevator door.
As long as everything everybody ever wanted could fit through the elevator door.
As long as somebody else didn’t want to use that same elevator.elevators are shared today with no issues it’s uncalled kindergarten
As long as the power and all the electronics to control the elevator lasted so the elevator, the elevator door, and the lights worked every time everybody wanted them to.they pretty much do already
As long as no crook, cheater, or rapist wanted to use the elevator.come on…really? That will always be an issue even today
As long as every person in every family above you, below you, beside you, and across from you lived exactly the same way you lived and was just as nice and polite and helpful and quiet and perfect every minute of every day of every year as you are.good (sound) insulation makes for great neighbors but still, even today, loudness can come from the house next door
I love the way dreamers ignore reality and real world experience.
Look up the troubles designers of actual building have had with installing enough elevators in even medium rise high rises so that people don’t have to wait half an hour for the next elevator.
Mark,
Never once did I say it would be Easy nor did I say it would be without design issues, but, being a former Architectural Design student graduate I can certainly speak to the simple fact that the engineering issues can be overcome.
I merely stated that it would be the most practical way to eliminate daily automobile use.
Now if you can think of a better method to eliminate the NEED for daily mass automobile travel, I’m all ears.
I see no need to eliminate the car.
I see no need to find a way to force people to live in your ideal world, rather than theirs.
Kristi: “Not everybody needs an SUV.”
—
That’s not what the adds are saying.
BTW, I’m one of the few here who think ICE engines should be replaced by more fuel-efficient options like Hybrids. I see nothing wrong with them. You’re right of course that cars are wasteful machines and less waste is a thing which requires little effort to agree on (unless you’re trying to disagree about it for some weird reason, which takes some sustained effort).
That sounds only very slightly better than a maximum security prison.
In what way is it different from a maximum security prison?
This all reminds me, uncomfortably, of “Dreamers,” an old dystopian story about the far future (i.e. Today!) when the majority of the population spent all its time vegging in high rise flats, plugged into entertainment, being fed by IV, and drugged to reduce resistance.
“This all reminds me, uncomfortably, of ‘Dreamers’…”
Or ‘In The Year 2525 (Exordium And Terminus)’
In the year 5555
Your arms are hanging limp at your sides
Your legs got nothing to do
Some machine is doing that for you
Is Trump Tower like a maximum security prison?
We in America are spoiled by the space we have for urban sprawl. Developers build 3500 sq. ft. McMansions on 1/2 acre lots for a 4-person family. Who really needs that much room? I used to work for the insurance industry, and I saw a lot of these properties. The front would be full of gables and 4 kinds of siding, with a 3-car garage, while the sides and back were flat, featureless vinyl siding. It’s all about status. Lawns perfectly green, uniform and weed-free, reflecting the massive amounts of chemicals needed to keep them that way.
Someone told me last week that in L.A. some people have 3-hour commutes, partly because traffic is so bad.
It’s an incredible waste of energy. Maybe if energy weren’t so cheap, people would conserve more and make different choices. Not everybody needs an SUV. The safety issue is a double-edged sword. If there were fewer on the road, driving smaller cars would be safer. People driving SUVs often don’t realize that their vehicles have greater mass and momentum, and take longer to stop – they’re often the ones who get cocky, speeding on snowy, icy roads. People in them may be safer, but those driving the compact they hit pay the price.
While I don’t think anyone should be forced to live where they don’t want to, if urban planners were more inventive they could supply housing that required much less driving while including areas of green space. Europeans are more used to apartment living than many Americans, but not all. New Yorkers, for example, are used to apartments and many of them get by fine without a car. But then, not everyone want’s to live in New York.
Perhaps if a greater diversity of choices were offered, people might elect to live in communities incorporating shopping and green space within easy walking distance. It could be a good choice for young couples who don’t want to spend a lot. Integrating low-income housing with higher-priced condos is one way of getting families out of ghettos, where children are exposed to many negative influences.
I know ideas like these aren’t without their problems, but I still think that there could be greater creativity in urban planning.
“What a glorious future the ‘progressives’ have for us.” Why should this be a political fight? Are conservatives against energy conservation? Is that on the Republican platform: “We want low-cost energy so that we can waste it”?
Ms Silber,
One of the joys of living in a free society is that we can get what we WANT, rather than what someone else has determined we NEED. (Assuming, of course, that we can afford it.)
We live on the Southern California coastal plain. Not a lot of 3500 square foot Mc Mansions here – land prices are way too high for that. And I haven’t put any chemicals on my lawn (other than the quarterly fertilizer). And no weeds – because I weed them out.
I’m sure that there are places like the one you describe, but it certainly isn’t the norm here.
Jim,
I agree, people should have freedom to choose. But without a range of choices, there is less freedom.
I also believe that taking responsibility for one’s choices is part of freedom, and if people were more aware of and concerned about the effects of the choices they make, they might decide differently. Any change in norms is a product of awareness and education. But I’m not judging anyone for the choices they make. We all have priorities. Plenty of liberals I know have houses far bigger than they need. Maybe they make other decisions to lower their carbon footprint, such as the temperature setting on their thermostat or driving a hybrid.
You mean like a prison unit with a greenhouse stuck on top?
What a glorious future the “progressives” have for us.
@Bryan A
You will find that is the aim of Agenda 21. Electric cars do this in any case as they do not have the range to do otherwise. You cannot put 4 jerry cans of electricity in the back of the car for extra range. Switch off power to charging points and the population can no longer travel.
Which is why I believe that the only way to electrify Road Transportation is to eliminate the need for the battery to carry the juice. The electric motors need to be powered a different way. Perhaps Electromagnetic Induction
Oh great.
100’s of trillions of dollars to rebuild all the major roads in the country. You would still need a battery unless you intend to run the inductors all the way to every garage.
Let’s also plan on doubling the electric generating capacity since these inductors will lose about half the energy sent to them.
This is even less practical than your desire to force everyone in high rise hamster habitats.
You would need to Quadruple it just to electrify current transportation needs with batteries and solar/wind and allow for quick charging stations to be as common as Gas Stations.
OK Bryan, What about:
Farm machinery.
Construction machinery.
Emergency Service vehicles.
Country roads.
Forestry tracks.
Off road vehicles.
Police vehicles (who need to pursue wherever).
Island living.
Lawn mowers, bob cats, mulchers and other small machinery.
They all still need fuel, and the infrastructure to deliver it.
Six elderly people with walkers will clog that plan up quickly. You’d need an elevator for every 12 people in the building.
Among people want to live like termites this could work, but some of us want to live beyond the cocoon.
The next step is to pass laws to force everyone into these high rise monstrosities.
No thank-you Brian A. I’ve read too many sci-fi novels where things go horribly wrong when people are cooped up in mile-high buildings. Besides, I like to step outside, so to speak and take a spin around the neighborhood in my iLevel 2.0, soaking in its sights, sounds and smells.
As well as the practicalities and the fearsome risk of such a structure from fire, etc, I suspect an analysis of the work required to be done by electrical energy supply to the elevators raising such masses of people and supplies would be considerable, even with energy recovery on the downward track. It is also likely to be much more practical to use, cheaper and less energy consuming to build structures at ground level IF there is ground available. Lifting everything needed to run a technological manufacturing society into the air against gravity when you have alternatives is overtly unnecessarily energetic.
Have you done the arithmetic, or is this just talking without thinking?
You don’t get hydrogen in bulk by using electrolysis. You get it through decomposition of methane. In other words, it’s a fossil fuel.
It doesn’t require ‘massive amounts of energy to produce’, in fact if the partial oxidation method is used it’s exothermic. Presently about 95% of hydrogen produced in the US is produced by reforming of natural gas (half of the hydrogen from CH4 and half from water).
Erm … in what way is that better than just using the CH4 as fuel?
As we have de-industrialised our society by exporting our technologcal skills to lower cost countries our millenial children can no longer find productive work in industry, nor does the job market need these skills. So millenials are generally technically ignorant and many have marginal numeracy and pointless jobs in media and services some expressing their delusional and technically false beliefs on proven science and technology as facts, BBC, Guardian, etc,. They don’t like things they don’t understand and cannot control so wish them to be made simple so they can do them at home, etc. Such delusionals are easy picking for cynical exploiters, both fiscal and political, because they don’t know any better. And, because they cannot argue their technically undeliverable positions on the facts and the laws of physics, they cannot justify what they believe, so resort to ad hom and other threats, exactly as did the religions who depended on imposing delusional beliefs by fear for power and profit. If you want reason, go to China, where our multinational elite transfered it.
You may have cause and effect reversed there.
Perhaps one of the reasons why so many companies have to go elsewhere to find a workforce is because millenials are “generally technically ignorant and many have marginal numerac”
Marginal numeracy…
This raises an interesting perspective: are the ignorant, rubes actually urban young? The impression has been for a couple of centuries: that rural rubes are where the ignorance is in redneck country. Now it appears ‘rural’ doesn’t mean ‘rube’ at all. Practical knowledge and critical thought patterns are disappearing in urbanity.
“What Will Persuade Conservatives To Fight Climate Change?”
In a single word…Nothing.
There is no need to Fight It. Wrong question completely…
Right question, “What Will Persuade Conservatives to Embrace Carbon Free Energy Sources?”
Answer…When Carbon Free produces:
Constant
Affordable
Reliable
Energy
with 100% availability at a cost equal to or less than current Fossil Energy provides.
Currently this is Hydro and Nuclear
All others produce their reviled CO2 or unreliable inconstant energy.
“What Will Persuade Conservatives To Fight Climate Change?”
Telling the truth and honest, unmangled data that shows anything truly dangerous would be a good start. Ships full of green WIMPS* stuck in ice, not so much.
(proudly sent from a solid red state in the deplorable Midwest.)
*WIMP … Weakly interacting moronic person
when the libs stop getting caught lying…….
Silent Spring?
Then they wouldn’t be Libs then would they?
That’s like asking a scorpion not to sting. it wouldn’t be scorpion it complied.
W = wildly
“What Will Persuade Conservatives To Fight Climate Change?”
The one thing that will do that is evidence that human-caused Climate Change exists and is a problem.
Mother Nature controls the climate. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. As of now, there is nothing to “fight”.
We are headed for another ice age and it can not be prevented.
About 1,020,000 results (0.57 seconds)
Showing results for the left worry about diaper rash
Things the left worry about !
I have an idea. How about we get the government out of our pockets? Put government on a diet.
That reminded me of this song:
I gots to gets me a Gubbament job
Had you actually listened to the lyrics you would have said something less “off the wall”, I’m sure…
As I am becoming an “elder”, I concentrate on fighting gravity.
I would imagine that trying to fight entropy with raising environmental taxes on fuel would be just as advantageous as fighting compound interest with a dollar a year payment?
What will it take for me to believe in CAGW?
(1) I will start to take notice when their predictions improve to 1% accurate after 5 years. Until then, no dice.
(2) I require all studies to use actual factual observable and repeatable data, and absolutely no models.
(3) I require everyone who says it is a problem to lead by example. Don’t ever tell me to do something you won’t do yourself. Until then, I will tune you out.
(4) I require all the people who say it is a problem to debate honestly with someone who says it is not. The debate may not use, by either party, ad hominen, ad populum, strawman, appeal to emotion, or any other logical fallacy.
Wade “The debate may not use, by either party, ad hominen, ad populum, strawman, appeal to emotion, or any other logical fallacy.”
That would leave them speechless.
+10
Wade,
Your first two demands are mutually exclusive.
All statistical analyses are models. Even a graph is a model – a representation of the real world.
The problem with debates between all people on both sides of the controversy is that most people don’t have a good grasp of the science (or often of science in general). Your criterion for 1% accuracy is a case in point. The GCMs can NEVER be that accurate, nor are they intended to be. They are only approximations, and some predictions are much less confident than others. Climate is simply too complex, and it has an element of chaos that can’t be fully accounted for in the models. There will always be natural variability, some of which can be predicted (solar cycles), some of which can’t (volcanic eruptions).
If you have expectations like this, you will never believe, no matter how much evidence there is. This is a major problem, I think, in the skeptic way of seeing models – they don’t consider the inherent limitations of models, even though they are acknowledged by climate scientists. Without knowing their limitations as well as their “skill” (the ability of models to provide new information), people will forever be disappointed by them.
We can’t all be experts. Climate scientists have spent decades studying their areas of expertise, and have a great depth of understanding the theory and literature. Even within the field there is a great range of knowledge. An oceanographer can’t talk shop with an atmospheric physicist – they wouldn’t understand each other, even if they both study climate. We must rely on authority when it comes to science. Laymen trying to practice or debate science just don’t have the depth of knowledge required to make informed demonstrations or decisions, but instead oversimplify. At best, they show what others have known for years. At worst, they totally misrepresent reality. This is one reason I concentrate on pointing out logical fallacies rather than trying to provide evidence. The evidence is out there. Look it up. Don’t rely on blogs to reveal the truth.
Kristi,
You are to be admired for your efforts to improve your understanding of the world.
But, starting from a knowledge base as low as yours, you provide miniscule value with stories of your discovery voyage. To impart wisdom, you first have to be wise.
Geoff
Geoff:
I believe Kristi is a scientist.
What sort of “knowledge base” do you think is required (to point out logical fallacies) .
I presume, just as you have presumed just because she stands against the tide here, by dint of that ignorant statement – that you DO have that knowledge base?
Please enlighten us.
And by how much does she or me not reach that standard when compared with the great majority of echoers we get on here.
Perhaps just the fact that she, me, Nick Stokes, Bellman, Ivanskinsman, Simon and a tiny few others who brave the vitriol here for daring to not just add another echo to the chamber that largely is blind to any other opinion other than, either it’s ….
Not happening.
The numbers are fixed.
It’s the Sun.
It’s cosmic rays.
It’s El Niño.
It’s a scam
Mann is a *** so it’s a lie.
Monckton is a genius.
And many more.
And also could you say which of these options you prefer….
Earth scientists are incompetent.
Earth scientists are scammers.
Earth scientists know more than you.
And mind the “logical fallacy” with your reply
Without ad hom please.
And mind the “logical fallacy” with your reply
Without ad hom please.
I have been hanging around this blog for a rather long time. I can share with you that in the past, there were a lot more scientists arguing the fine points of the science here. Alarmists scientists were frequent visitors and got into raging arguments with other scientists about the science. Which, sadly, we don’t get nearly enough of any more.
But let me share with you why that is. The alarmist scientists got their butts handed to them over and over and over again. Often they were embarrassed by having their own links, references, and data used against them. They got crushed. One by one they were shown to be wrong and one by one they drifted away. I agree that this forum has become an echo chamber.
The fault lies with the alarmist scientists who cannot win an argument but would rather become silent than admit they are wrong. Instead we have the likes of Kristi Silber trying to tell us to accept her choice of authorities with no scientific rationale at all.
If the alarmists scientists are right, then they should be here explaining. But they aren’t because they can’t.
“If the alarmists scientists are right, then they should be here explaining. But they aren’t because they can’t.”
I would agree with you if it were people pushing the extreme but not if they lie within the range that consensus science (IPCC) states (1.5 to 4.5C per 2x CO2).
Then you can’t get your “butt kicked” ( esp when in the median of that range ) because that is where the science points.
Butts are only kickable if a peer-reviewed paper (preferably several) does not support stated science.
NOT via reference to motivated Blogery alone.
Places such as this hand out the “self-fulfilling prophecy” of shouting down – some would say “butt-kicking” that peeps here seem to think a victory merely by dint of numbers. From this side we know and expect that treatment.
As someone once said “science is not a democracy”.
Yep, and certainly not from a squewed population of ‘voters’.
I think there are very few that actually believe that the science points to “the median of that range” any longer. Even the IPCC scrubbed their “best guess”.
By the way a range doesn’t even have a median. A median is the value separating the lower and upper half of a data sample. It isn’t applicable to a continuous range.
How about “consensus efforts to silence scientists, just like the effort to silence skeptics in general, gives deceptive and misleading framing of the issue.
On a personal note I suggest you stop making an annoying fool if yourself by using argumens that rely on blanket statements that ignore reality.
You believe wring.
Real scientists do not rely on authority, they rely on testable evidence.
Kristi, whatever her her work, is no scientist.
“On a personal note I suggest you stop making an annoying fool if yourself by using argumens that rely on blanket statements that ignore reality.”
On a “personal note” you have no authority to “suggest” to me anything my friend.
On here or anywhere else.
And I did say “those that brave the vitriol”.
Thanks for providing QED.
“ that rely on blanket statements that ignore reality.”
LOL:
You prob have no idea of the irony and hypocrisy that statement congures in people who do not conform to the echoes on here, and can be bothered with your kind of reply.
For what it’s worth it’s expected as I said earlier. The Internet and especially motivated blogs that drown out opposing views – and sadly here, consensus science.
A “consensus”, that is, of observations matching theory. Not opinion.
Just because the dog-whistle has to be answered.
I love how warmist take the most extreme position, from a pure propaganda document, and declare that it is the consensus.
No need to actually understand the science. Just echo what the executive summary of the IPCC says.
You need authority over someone in order to make a suggestion?
What a strange, totalitarian world you live in Anthony.
Ah yes, the old “any place that doesn’t ban things I disagree with is an echo chamber” argument.
I guess it’s easier than actually thinking for yourself.
I would agree with you if
You construct a straw man and then attack it. You did not ask for examples.
For the record, I was involved in a lot of those debates and won many by quoting from the IPCC. But that’s only a tiny fraction of the story. We also had a lot of skeptics putting forth theories such as the GHE was impossible. They were debated by skeptic and alarmist scientists alike and put into their place. The science was front and centre.
FWIW, the IPCC sensitivity range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees is unsupportable. AR5 relied on “expert opinion” for that range. The number of recent papers showing sensitivity to be lower than previously thought forced them to reduce the low end from 2.0 to 1.5, yet despite a lack of evidence to support the high end, they left 4.5 in place. So they no longer even have a range calculated by scientific method and they have no justification for the high end of their range at all. Beware quoting the IPCC, they are becoming increasingly political in the manner in which they report results.
If the observations matched the predictions I would not be here.
And I have the right to offer advice, just as you have the right to be a fool
David,
” Instead we have the likes of Kristi Silber trying to tell us to accept her choice of authorities with no scientific rationale at all.”
No, I’m suggesting people consider other evidence, and not simply dismiss it. It is not rational to disregard whatever evidence doesn’t fit one’s suppositions.
Ridiculing is different from disagreeing. Ridiculing shows disrespect. The people who post here who disagree with the majority are regularly insulted. It’s not a good forum for rational debate, especially when evidence provided is simply dismissed as the product of scientists who are corrupted in various ways. You help create this environment through your “guest ridicules,” and facilitate the echo chamber.
I never claimed to know a lot about climate science. I’m an ecologist. I can’t offer good debate, but I can comment about the quality of science and scientific discussion I see here.
I shouldn’t have to provide a “scientific rationale” for the evidence I contribute any more others do. I don’t even know what that means – am I supposed to provide the theory behind a paper? The way the data were collected? Why should I be singled out when so many others give links to their evidence without giving a “scientific rationale” behind them? Where is you rationale?
You give a misleading picture because you don’t discuss the caveats of the information you provide. The Chesapeake Bay sea level chart, for example, “shows the monthly mean sea level without the regular seasonal fluctuations due to coastal ocean temperatures, salinities, winds, atmospheric pressures, and ocean currents.” This is the problem with just presenting averages without explaining that averages don’t necessarily reflect the whole picture. What seems like a small increment can actually result in more damage than one would think. Yes, part of the change in RSL is due to land subsidence – but that part does not change in response to seasonal, tidal and weather phenomena, while water depth does. If the change in RSL is so inconsequential, why is flooding becoming more common in so many cities? Some of it could be due to freshwater flooding, but that would suggest that precipitation events are becoming more extreme – which in some regions seems to be the case.
Another example is the carbon tax info. In the link you provide, there are several paragraphs discussing the caveats, including the fact that the effects of supply and demand are not incorporated in the figures. which seems to me to be a pretty important factor. You also assume that the money made from a carbon tax will would never be returned to consumers, an extremely important part of any kind of carbon tax legislation without which it would certainly never get passed.
Taken all together, your presentation is so biased it damages your credibility among those who might accept a more balanced, less emotional argument. Your M.O. is ridicule and insults, which are inappropriate in a rational scientific debate.
“The alarmist scientists got their butts handed to them over and over and over again. Often they were embarrassed by having their own links, references, and data used against them. They got crushed. One by one they were shown to be wrong and one by one they drifted away.”
I wonder how much of this is your interpretation. Based on my own experience and that of others, I suspect their flight was at least partly due to frustration at having their evidence and reasoning dismissed even when they were acceptable and relevant. It’s also pretty tough for one person to debate 10 at once. Demands a lot of time.
You once said I was wrong most of the time. That’s your perception. I don’t see it that way. I’m wrong some of the time. Some of the time I make pertinent comments that are ignored.
……………………………………….
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/09/12/pentagon-is-still-preparing-for-global-warming-even-though-trump-said-to-stop/
“WASHINGTON ― The Pentagon has continued to take steps to defend its military bases against extreme weather despite direction from President Donald Trump to stop preparing for climate change.
…
“Hampton Roads region in Virginia, which houses the largest concentration of U.S. military sites in the world, we see recurrent flooding today, and we are beginning work to address a projected sea-level rise of 1.5 feet over the next 20 to 50 years,” the roadmap concluded.”
I don’t know if 1.5 feet is realistic, but it’s hard to tell, and as long as changes are being made, one might as well make the changes with the worst-case scenario in mind. That’s not alarmism, that’s just common sense.
What is not common sense is to dismiss evidence of the effects of climate change based simply on averages and ignore variability. It is not the average changes that are the problem, it’s the increase in extremes. A corn field can deal with an average increase of 2 C, but it may not do so well through a heat wave where temperatures are 2 C higher than they were during an average heat wave in the 1980s (or now), with low humidity and no rain. Crops in Europe were ruined by the heat wave this summer. Yes, that was weather, not climate. But when climate changes, so does the weather. Extreme weather events could be symptomatic of climate change, even if no single one of them shows it’s happening. They are more data. If every extreme weather event were written off as natural variability, no trends would ever be identified or acknowledged.
As long as there is significant POTENTIAL that the models are skillful in some of their projections, we should be taking them seriously, at least through planning adaptation strategies. Dismissing any evidence that supports the models is only rational if scientists can agree on an explanation for it that doesn’t involve AGW – and skeptical scientists seem to have a problem doing so. Natural variability is not the null hypothesis, random variability is.
Hunter,
“Real scientists do not rely on authority, they rely on testable evidence.”
That makes no sense. Scientists rely on the authority of each other, or each would have to do all the same research that has already been done. If scientists rely on scientists for authority, why shouldn’t laymen?
I’m not a practicing scientist now, but I have a Master’s (completed all requisites for a PhD but the thesis) and have done research. What are your qualifications?
Speaking of echo chambers, here comes Anthony, straight from his.
You seem to believe that having multiple explanations proves that none of them are right.
More likely all of them are. Unlike warmists, we skeptics are sophisticated enough to recognize that in the real world there are many factors that influence outcomes.
As to Kristi being a scientist, having a degree in a pseudo scientific field is not sufficient to make one a scientist.
MarkW,
My degree is in ecology and evolution. If you think that’s pseudo-science, you’re too dumb to know what it is.
” Unlike warmists, we skeptics are sophisticated enough to recognize that in the real world there are many factors that influence outcomes.”
Another silly generalization courtesy of MarkW.
So you have a degree, what is your experience and achievement record (since you have narcissistically derailed this thread to be “all about Kriti Silbur”)?
MarkW/KS
Your next arguments seem to be heading this direction:
The Great Pyramids do not exist because they cannot possibly exist because no credential engineer built them.
or
No one but automotive engineer should have cars; drive cars because the rest of us are not automotive engineers.
or
You have to be a well credentialed mathematician to understand 2+2=4.
—–
I have no college degree; only a HS diploma; some electronics and electrical training form the US Army. Yet some how I have found myself working in the Radio-pharmacy industry employed as a Cyclotron Engineer on both the Eclipse RDS(Field Engineering Trainer these days) and GE PETtrace Cyclotrons. Delivering to the medical professionals the ability to obtain real-time actionable scientific data using the PET modality.
I have also submitted patents; pushing the boundaries of our knowledge of our species. All without a college degree.
—–
What does having a degree mean? I know a lot empty headed PhD’s. I think too many people trap themselves into “Wizards’ 1st Rule” at a self-inflicted level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard%27s_First_Rule
Most skeptics do not have the problem because we are naturally skeptical and perhaps cynical as well. I personally internally always question, “Hey is that a fact? Is there new information out there? Dude! That may be a belief and have no basis in reality!”. I keep the “Wizards’ 1st Rule” close so I do not fall into the trap of my internal propaganda machine.
Good point. We skeptics don’t respect authority or education (social institutions) because (good) Reasoning and Logic are functions of human thinking, not of authority or education (social institutions).
So sound reasoning and logic will persuade us. And since any logic system is constrained by its axioms/assumptions and data, these need to be of good quality too.
For example causality running time-wise from cause to effect (normal science) is better than that running from effect (increase in temperature) to cause (higher CO2).
.
Geoff,
“But, starting from a knowledge base as low as yours, you provide miniscule value with stories of your discovery voyage. To impart wisdom, you first have to be wise.”
Knowledge is not the same as wisdom.
One does not need knowledge of climate science per se to recognize poor science if one has a substantial scientific background, which I do.
If you don’t see any significant contribution in my comments, either you agree with them or you dismiss them. If it’s the latter case, you do so because you don’t have the wisdom to listen to and potentially learn from those who think differently from you. Most of us have plenty of room for improvement in this kind of wisdom, myself included. But I try. It’s just not obvious when I do.
Oh, scientific background is it? You sound like an apprentice bragging decades of experience as a craftsman. Too bad nobody else here has as complete a background as you missy, right?
KS,
Or we could just trust our ancient ancestors when they noted in their historical records, dairies, etc.
“The year’s winter is was very mild. Everybody lived.”
or
“Spring came early this year and we now have a more food than ever.”
or
“Eighteen members of our community died during the harsh winter conditions.”
Sure those are perhaps weather events; seasonal events but if that is what you point out then would be willfully missing the point.
—–
Cold kills more. History, not climate science, tells us that a milder or warmer Earth is better for all life. Some of the largest known plants and animals that ever existed on the planet was when the planet was much warmer(I read a long time ago 9C degree warmer maybe it was 9F; not sure I trust the number in my head).
And for all the talk of the temperature of the planet, no one actually talks about the number NASA/NOAA publishes as the average temperature(mathematically valid and still physically means nothing).
Even a graph is a model … want to bet ? its a graph which is why they call it a graph and not a model … it displays real data … a model does not …
Technically, Excel trend lines are mathematical models (equations).
Although, they are models of hard data, as opposed to models of projections.
We must rely on authority when it comes to science. Laymen trying to practice or debate science just don’t have the depth of knowledge required to make informed demonstrations or decisions, but instead oversimplify.
How would you know? You advanced a theory as to why the Bill Nye experiment didn’t work that was so wrong as to be ridiculous. I explained it to you in comments, never heard from you again. Perhaps you should read it, because it is pretty simple, and you can confirm that I’m right by looking up any explanation of how the GHE works from any authoritative source you wish and comparing it to my explanation.
So you demonstrate that YOU don’t understand the science, then demand that I accept the authority of your choice. I, who won that wager about the results should the experiment be repeated BECAUSE I understand the science am supposed to bow to the authority of your choice?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Why does “prof” Silber not call to authority the works of eminent climate scientists like Spencer, Christy, or Curry? What about brilliant Physicists like Happer and Soon? Does she know who the Pielkes are, or Susan Crockford?
Authority exists on both sides of the issue, with the exception that a few authorities on the subject are not grant money hostages to the politically conceived “planetary emergency” which holds formerly objective scientists to a specific agenda fi they wish to be even minimally successful.
To my fellow Ecologist Kristi, this is a diversion from the real problems man creates in the ecology. If you look at history you will find that my generation has seen incredible improvements in air and water pollution abatement. Ecologists should be spending energy on improving urban conditions and fighting UHI when it comes to climate change, not pushing part-time electricity from ecosystem destroying wind and solar megastructures.
Pop Pisasa,
“Why does “prof” Silber not call to authority the works of eminent climate scientists like Spencer, Christy, or Curry?”
Never felt the need to.
“What about brilliant Physicists like Happer and Soon?”
I don’t trust either of these in the realm of climate science. Far too obviously biased. Soon’s work has been refuted.
” Does she know who the Pielkes are, or Susan Crockford?”
Yes.
“If you look at history you will find that my generation has seen incredible improvements in air and water pollution abatement.”
This is environmental science, not ecology.
“Ecologists should be spending energy on improving urban conditions”
Some are.
“…and fighting UHI when it comes to climate change”
??? Why?
“…not pushing part-time electricity from ecosystem destroying wind and solar megastructures.”
Who says that’s what they, as a group, are doing?
An oceanographer can’t talk shop with an atmospheric physicist – they wouldn’t understand each other, even if they both study climate
This is a comment that can only be made by someone with no understanding of either.
In my experience, few if any of the warmistas have even the faintest clue regarding how actual science works.
In school they have been taught what to think, not how to think. And it shows.
Laymen trying to practice or debate science just don’t have the depth of knowledge required to make informed demonstrations or decisions, but instead oversimplify.
Since you are obviously a layman with a VERY limited understanding of the science in question, HOW THE H*LL WOULD YOU know? How, exactly, would YOU know that the authority you believe in is correct? How, Kristi, do you become the arbiter of which authority is correct when YOU have ZERO basis upon which to make that determination? How dare you dismiss the opinion of people who know FAR more about the science than you because you have some sort of belief system in authorities that you admittedly don’t understand the science of? The thing you don’t seem to get Kristi is that those of us who DO have a background in the VERY science we are talking about are the ones MOST likely to call BSH!T.
Appeal to authority is the last refuge of the scoundrel. A scientist can explain their science in terms that other scientists can check and verify. Only scoundrels and fools appeal to authority.
David,
I disagree. Scientists these days are necessarily so focused on a few subjects that they know in depth that an oceanographer can’t talk about the details of his research and expect an atmospheric physicist to contribute to the conversation. Sure, the oceanographer can explain what he does, but that is not the “talking shop” that I mean. Even the terminology is often particular to a realm of expertise.
I have a pretty solid background in ecology and evolution. I can explain to a layman some of the basics, but it would be impossible for me to really give a thorough, detailed conception of ecology or evolution to an atmospheric physicist, just as it would be difficult for you (presumably) to encapsulate all you know about geology in one or a few conversations with me. Scientists go to school for years just to get a basic grounding in their field, then spend decades refining their understanding of one part of their field.
“How, exactly, would YOU know that the authority you believe in is correct? ”
I don’t. I think all science should be taken with a grain of salt – that’s the nature of science. My point is that there are many sources of evidence, and to ignore any of them just because they don’t seem to fit the picture one has of the world is just as bad as believing some bit of evidence is the Truth and sticking by it no matter what. So, the search for Truth is about gathering all these little pieces of evidence, weighing them, seeing how they fit together to make a cohesive picture, and then take that as a working hypothesis. It still may be wrong, and one must always keep that in mind.
This is why scientists are authorities. They search for all these bits of evidence. They read hundreds of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, understand them fully against their background knowledge and place in the literature as a whole, and are mindful of the caveats and limitations of the evidence – and that last part is key.
In order to put their expertise in the context of other research, scientists themselves must rely on the “authority” of other scientists. That doesn’t mean they believe the other scientists have discovered the Truth. Often scientists will discuss research that contradicts their own, or contradicts other research. They realize that science is imperfect, but that eventually the evidence will reveal something approaching Truth that can be use as a working hypothesis. Nothing in science is ever “proved,” as any good scientist knows.
To communicate with the public, they must synthesize this knowledge in a format the layman can understand. It is necessarily an oversimplification.
I don’t see how your evidence is not an appeal to authority.
I’m not trying to denigrate your knowledge, David; I know your knowledge of climate is much broader and deeper than mine. Nor am I defending the claims made in the article you discuss. I just don’t like the way you present your arguments. Calling people who believe AGW is a danger to the planet “warmunists,” a term that I’m guessing is supposed to associate them with communism, is offensive and juvenile, and no better than those who associate the idea of “CAGW” skepticism with denial of the Holocaust. You lower yourself to their level.
“How dare you dismiss the opinion of people who know FAR more about the science than you because you have some sort of belief system in authorities that you admittedly don’t understand the science of? ”
Everyone has a right to their opinion, and I have a right to disagree. But I see things a little differently: I see how easy it is to get caught up in a way of thinking when one surrounds oneself with those who think similarly. I see the way articles are presented here, and how people are led to interpret the evidence. I see how often people take that lead, and how rarely they question it. Like Judith Curry, I’ve read a lot about the way the mind is susceptible to suggestion and manipulation, and how unreasonable humans really are. I know I’m no different. I’m biased, I admit that freely. The first step in counteracting bias is recognizing it. That doesn’t mean I do a good job – but people here wouldn’t know. They don’t really know how or what I think, and that’s obvious from the comments I get and the false assumptions made about me. My intention is less to prove others wrong than to give a different perspective. I’m a natural devil’s advocate, I’ve always been this way.
“The thing you don’t seem to get Kristi is that those of us who DO have a background in the VERY science we are talking about are the ones MOST likely to call BSH!T.”
But there are many people with backgrounds at least as good as yours who would disagree. Why should I take you as my authority?
There are many comments here that show I’ve been misunderstood. I don’t have the energy or time (or desire) to address them all. This is an illustration of how exhausting it can be debating scores of people. It’s no wonder people give up.
Ms Silber, sometimes a scientific argument is in jargon, which is possible to learn. Sometimes, the writer is obviously blowing smoke, as with Mann and his “hockey stick” , and his defenses of his original paper.
Not allowing other researchers to check your work, and run the sort of factor analysis Mann used in his paper, is a sign of something pathological going on. As I have concluded parapsychology is useless, there is no way of determining Mann’s mental state without his cooperation.
All one can use is his reaction to McIntyre and McKittrick, which is a serious challenge to his pet model. A classic example of deni*al.
Kristi,
I talk to scientists from many different disciplines. The overlap is substantial in the hard sciences and your belief that they cannot communicate with one another is without merit.
But let me summarize this insane discussion. You don’t understand the science you insist I should accept as authority. I on the other hand DO understand the science, and I have caught those authorities lying to me. Their credibility is lost. No amount of advocacy on your part is going to change the fact that they have not put credible data and logic on the table. I use the word alarmist because I have no other word.
IPCC AR5 WGII Chapter 10, Figure 10-10, summarizes the effects of various factors like population, lifestyle, income and aging and ranks them in comparison to climate change across a variety of industries ranging from winter tourism to transportation and finds that in almost every case, that climate not only has less effect, but MUCH LESS effect.
So Kristi, I’m citing the most recent climate science from the highest authority in the world. YOUR authority. And what does it say? It says that even winter tourism will be much less affected by climate change than it will be by things like lifestyle. Even an ecologist can follow this chart.
So the IPCC Kristi, your authority of choice, makes it clear that not much is going on with climate that is very important compared to all the other things that are changing in the world. Yet we don’t have people demanding that we destroy our economies to deal with them. It is only climate that supposedly is going to destroy civilization despite these other things being much larger factors.
Read it yourself, it is you authority, not mine, that says we have diddly squat to worry about from climate in the big picture. Those who claim otherwise… well, either they are uninformed, or they are crying wolf. You know. Raising the alarm. Tell me what word you would use for them. And for G_D’s sake, read the d*mn literature. You don’t need to be a physicist to understand this stuff.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/01/we-have-bigger-problems-than-climate-change-so-sayeth-ipcc-ar5/
While you may not like the Middelton style of criticism, your point regarding specialisation sails right past the key point for me. Partiality and presumption of modellers. Focussing on studying AGW in the atmosphere with over sensitive weather models, stuffed full of actually inaccurate presumptions by their statistical modellers, rather than seek out what causes climate change in the physical fact, taking in all the planetary effects involved holistically in addition to the atmosphere, which in fact is just smart lagging mainly controlled by water vapour, that shuts down warming as temperatures rise, for example. The partia;ity of their so called science , when claimed to represent the global climate, is one of the very obvious problems in the pseudo science of climate modellers – who can prove no laws but prefer their guesses to what actually happens. And work on a such a short periods that all they can see is noise in one short human life, because what they are trying to study is AGW from trace gasses in the atmosphere, not the planetary climate system.
The energies involved are far too massive hence slow changing to do more than change in the noise over human lives. The wrongly assert the lithosphere and oceans to be passive or insignificant in effect, and very incorrectly, as plants and cosmic rays effects on albedo from clouds and plant growth, and the effects of variable plate tectonics all show so clearly. Important effects are simply discounted. This is partial and wrong, so the specialisation cannot claim to model global climate with only a part of the actual system in its presumptive models. And significant effects from other specialisations excluded.
And these scientists prefer alarmist and overtly wrong assumptions. Any thermal runaway of their phoney alarmism depend upon the assumption that water vapour enhances CO2 GHE, when in fact water vapour forming clouds from warming oceans is the dominant negative feedback to further warming during an interglacial maximum, cloud evaporation and albedo currently produces 140W/m^2 of negative feedback on the incoming 340W/m^2 of solar radiation, versus the 1.6W/M^2 of AGW effect in the IPCC’s over amplified models , and the clouds are very able to feedback to control warming, as they have at the end of each ice age. Water vapour doesn’t amplify trace gas effects, it cancels their effect as clouds. Proof Obs.
This control flat lines each interglacial warming after 7Ka while CO2 from warming oceans still rises, with no effect, so such assertions by so called scientists are a direct denial of the the evidence of the ice cores. The limit is held until the aditional heat is dissipated to space a few thousand years later , when the plateau ends and as we enter the next neo glacial. In the current oceanic controlled ice age climate we are in, still close to interglacial maximums, cloud control easily adjusts the equilibrium to cope with cosmic rayys, vocanie erutpions, albedo changes from ice and plant growth variation, etc.
To return to the main point here. There can be no realistic climate change prediction from the very partial science of a theoretical predictions that cover only one of the three disciplines required to determine a holistic approach, that ignores the active lithosphere and oceans. Also other effects that can produce the tiny variability we currently observe relative to the ice age range. Nothing to see here, except some esay money exloiting the fear of change that isn’t significant in human lifetimes.
It is worth pointing out that none of this matters to anyone living in actual fact, except those receiving grants to prove the wrong thing, $Billions pa wasted to justify the many $Trillions being funnelled into absolutely deceitful renewable energy subsidies by fraudulent laws based on CO2 as a climate change toxin it clearly is not. Here comes hard deterministc science from another specialisation, energy physics fact. Whatever the climate case, renewable energy as a way to address CO2 reduction, with adequate, affordable, sustainable and environmentally friendly solution is absolute energy science denial on every measure of its own claims, for a fast dishonest profit in human lifetimes, exploiting fear of an over amplified pseudo science, that hypes what is in measureable fact a tiny and insignificant change in climate in planetary time scales, strongly controlled by natural systems.
Which is why you have to be able to join the dots across specialities rather than hide in one, claiming it has the answer to the whole. No one discipline does.
We know the predictable 100Ka ice age cycles and their scale and rate of change, on which human effect is ACTUALLY tiny, even if as advertised, also the true effect of the planetary control system, from ice core records and other data. Whatever change occurs involves huge enrgy fuxes and happens over several lifetimes, longer than the time it takes to build whole new cities up or down hill.
So 0.6 deg K and perhaps 30cm sea level rise per century means we can study what really happens, defend against it where it is appropriate, and move when necessary. Throwing money at an undeliverable supposed remedy to a problem that is seriously questionable, based on a very dodgy and partial atmospheric model, that actually must damage the energy supply we rely on to remain developed and civilised , and respond to the small changes there are ever more successfully, is seriously self harming and counter intuitive. Unless you are profitiing from the deception.
To be clear. To remain civilised and developed through the next glacial period all ports will have to rebuild 100 metres down hill on the edges of continental shelves. That’s a change – but so SLOW it is not a threat in itself, although the reduction in CO2 and related plant death at low CO2 levels of the glacial period will be a challenge to feeding 11Billion people, perhaps. Good news from a recent animated pictogram posted here is that the glaciers only seem to form 17Ka before the end of the ice age cycle, so not for another 66Ka. Nothing to see here, really. The human “Run away” response is wholly unnecessary as far as climate change is concerned, and exploiting it for a fast renewable buck by scaring people in a wholly fraudulent way, using the macj hinery of government, is criminal and cynical profiteering. Nothing about this process is decent, honest or truthfull, ceratinly not based on provable or proven, evidence based, repeateble science. It’s Bad SCience for a fast back that IPCC socalled climate scientists are complicit in. (BS). A simple piece of extortion by state organised crime, a climate change protection racket fronted by the deceit of the IPCC “consensus”, promoted for their own profit by the likes of Al Gore et al, run by international elites for their own gain. In fact nothing changes noticeably in human terms – except the pointless rise in energy prices from renewable subsidies for technologies that can’t ever become more energetic, less intermittent or resource intensive on the physics facts, and we continue to fail to build the capable nuclear generation we need to power the grid when fossil energy use must decline through physical shortage. Nothing else can work, for most countries.
So I think having a joined up grasp across multiple specialities is absolutely essential to understanding and debating this.
Why should I take you as my authority?
For the record, I never asked you to accept my authority. I only explained to you why I would not accept yours.
But its been nearly 24 hours since my last comment citing your own authority (the IPCC) and not a peep from you. Either you’ve dropped the thread or you can’t be bothered with an “oh, I didn’t know that”.
Everybody – I made a mistake in quoting from a press release – I should know better. While it wasn’t technically wrong, like most PRs, it didn’t give the full context. For some reason, I couldn’t access the original in full, but the abstract is here:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073926
David,
(There is some stuff here written for others’ benefit, particularly about statistics. Otherwise I’d have to repeat myself.)
“So the IPCC Kristi, your authority of choice”
There’s a lie right there. Or at least an incorrect assumption.
I DO read the literature, which is how I discover that claims made by *some* skeptics about the literature are *sometimes* misleading. The same is true of alarmists, especially in the media. I don’t have a problem with “alarmists” (unless used inappropriately to include mainstream scientists), I have a problem with “warmunists” and all explicit or implied associations between climate views and socialism, etc.
” The overlap is substantial in the hard sciences and your belief that they cannot communicate with one another is without merit”
I didn’t say they can’t communicate. But that’s irrelevant to my main point, anyway, which is about laymen understanding science.
Take just one aspect: statistics. Without familiarity with the use and assumptions of statistical tests used in many scientific fields, I doubt most laymen would be able to fully understand and critique the research that uses these statistics. Even the simplest statistics that can be run with Excel have assumptions associated with them. For example, how many laymen know off-hand the assumptions of a regression analysis? How many who use this statistic in their presentations here test for homoscedasticity or normal distribution of residuals? Often the result is referred to as a correlation (by scientists, too), and many know that correlation does not equal causation, but regression analyses are a bit different from correlations in that there is an independent and dependent variable, and the variables have to be on the correct axes (I’ve seen them inverted here). While “causation” is still to be used with caution, one can *sometimes* say from a regression that the X variable explains a certain amount of variation in the Y variable, while one can’t in a correlation. When looking at climate, though, which is influenced by many factors, such simple statistics often can’t illustrate much anyway. Just because CO2 and temperature do not correlate doesn’t mean there isn’t a significant relationship between the two – it gets hidden by other factors, so multivariate analyses like multiple regression and PCAs are more appropriate.
Often there is no information given about what stats are used to create a graph.
Without that, it’s impossible to say whether any of the statistical assumptions are violated, or even what statistic was used (graphs from Wood for Trees are an example). Skepticism of trend lines is often appropriate.
Then there are misleading interpretations of data. For example, your (David’s) article, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/06/ninety-seven-percent-of-scientists-agree-climate-change-is-real-man-made-and-dangerous-survey-says-not/
In this you debate the “consensus” numbers – fair enough; I don’t give much credence to the “97%” myself. But you present data from a survey of the AMS as if it represents scientists in general. Instead of saying, “Only 96% of AMS members surveyed say…” you say, “Only 96% of ‘scientists’ agree that climate change is real.” However, only 37% of respondents called themselves “expert” in climate science, and less than half held a PhD in any STEM field. That is relevant to how we interpret the survey. Although you put “scientists” in quotation marks, you don’t explain why. One thing you didn’t include: “Nearly one in five AMS members (17%) say their opinion about climate change has changed in the past five years. Of those, the large majority (87%) say they now feel more convinced that climate change is happening.” Then there’s this you did say: “Only 18% of ‘scientists’ thought that there was any point in destroying our economy in order to prevent the weather from changing.” Needless to say, that wasn’t in the poll. Including the tweet from Chris Matthews Other Leg was especially misleading. These things should cause rational people to question whether they are getting an accurate picture of the true consensus among those who know most about AGW.
Then there is the pervasive dismissal of climate models. It’s good for people to be skeptical of them – but that is not the same thing as dismissing them. Nor does it make sense to dismiss the evidence that many of the predictions are correct (at least qualitatively). Sure, natural variability could produce the same results, but that is only an explanation if the causes of that natural variability are demonstrated (and not just hypothesized). “Coming out of the LIA” is not an explanation.
IMO, modeling climate is a legitimate pursuit, even if the results are approximations. (The data on a graph are also approximations: they represent a sample of the real world. To find a the relationship of age vs. height of teenage Americans, it is not necessary or feasible to sample the entire teen populace.) Over time, more data are gathered, computers get faster, processes are better understood. For example, improvement in solar cycle data could influence model skill. It is not rational to say that just because the first models didn’t perfectly predict the last 40 years, the latest round of models have no value. Because climate reflects factors that are influenced by human actions which can’t be precisely and accurately predicted, as well as transient conditions like aerosol emissions from volcanoes, models will always be approximations. This is why GCMs are better at modeling the past, about which we have data – even when they are not tuned to the past that is simulated.
From a scientific standpoint, the primary role of GCMs is to understand climate better. “The question you have to ask is whether a model tells you more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it’s skillful.” (Gavin Schmidt) Unfortunately, the IPCC has muddied the waters by laying so much stress on their “predictive” value in order to be of use to policy makers. OTOH, there is some justification for this, since changing the value of individual parameters (such as atmospheric CO2) does give a general idea of how some emergent climate variables will respond. However, many people ignore the confidence level of particular projections, resulting in silly claims about hurricanes and tornadoes, for instance. It’s important to consider the range among models, and the areas where they overlap. It’s very hard to put a number on ECS, but it is significant that there is an overlap in the ranges estimated by many models – this is the current reason for the estimate of 1.5-4 C, even if it was originally based on judgement. There are both high and low outliers that are less likely.
There is simply no way to understand any cause and effect relationship in climate, past, present or future, without the use of some kind of model. There is claim by Monckton that the GCMs are all fundamentally wrong, and his team can calculate Charney sensitivity using data from two years and a little math – but that is still a model, however simplistic it is. (Besides, if one is going to judge credibility of research by whether the researcher lies, there is no reason to even give him a hearing.)
…………………………………………
David, I’m not questioning your knowledge or your right to write whatever you want. I’m suggesting that your views influence others here, and that your posts give a biased picture of the evidence. You may understand much of the science, but when you are bent on sending a particular message, what does it matter? Even when your info is from authorities I trust, without context the data can still give an inaccurate picture. Subsidence or SLR alone may not lead to damaging floods, but what about the combination, along with other changes in climate (wind speed, precipitation)? A little here, a little there…they can add up, making “normal” extremes in weather more common in some areas, as suggested by the graph in the link in my previous post. This is the problem with averages. A few mm a year doesn’t seem like much, but over the course of 50 years, 3 mm/yr is about 6 inches, and in the context of other factors, that’s significant. That would affect inland flooding, too, through lower outflow downstream.
One can know a lot of facts, but without putting them together one never gets the full picture. There are so many interacting factors that it is humanly impossible to do this without models. That’s why we rely on models for short-term weather forecasts – but those are vastly different from GCMs; weather is more subject to chaotic factors than climate – otherwise there would be no such thing as biomes, which reflect predictable ranges of weather.
I’m looking at this strictly from the scientific standpoint. Policy should be informed by science, not be the lens through which we interpret science.
There should always be debate among scientists. There should always be skepticism of the results. This is healthy and normal. What is not healthy is when political and personal ideas color the way we react to research. Pielke, Jr. wrote a post here a while back that agreed in many ways with the consensus, and he was attacked for it in the comments. The post was about economic effects of extreme events. This is a policy issue that is easily conflated with the intensity and likelihood of those events, and it’s important to distinguish the two. IMO, policy is where debate among laymen is most critical, since we all theoretically have a say in it – we elect our politicians, not our scientists. But even in this realm we are dependent on the authority of economists, geologists and others to provide us with information. What is so wrong with that? Why should everyone have to become an expert in order to make a decision? It’s impossible! Expertise is not the same as being informed enough to weigh the issues. Making good, informed decisions means putting aside one’s biases long enough to evaluate an issue rationally. When there is a debate and the vast majority of experts agree, it makes little sense to side with the minority even if they say something that is more comfortable for us to believe. According to the survey David discussed, that minority is shrinking (at least among AMS members).
There is no person alive who knows all we know collectively about climate. Everyone relies on the knowledge (“authority”) of others, which is why it is part of a scientist’s job to read the ever-expanding body of literature related to their field.
I don’t like the fact that the climate is changing. I have nothing to gain by any policy that comes of it. I believe it’s not so much the amount as the rate of change that is likely to be detrimental, even though there are some benefits. Organisms (including humans) can adapt to change, but there are limits to the rate at which they can adapt. There are negative consequences that most people don’t consider, such as the expansion of populations of harmful invasive organisms that are kept in check by minimum temperatures, e.g. gypsy moths and emerald ash borers. Weeds, too, have a high degree of plasticity compared to crops, which are highly inbred. People will need to invest in new technologies and infrastructure. Adaptation comes at a cost.
In my view, we should spread this cost out over time rather than letting it accrue. I DON’T think switching to renewables should be the primary way of dealing with it – one thing I’ve learned from WUWT.
You may have come across scientists that you dislike, or even ones that lie. I have, too. But to extrapolate that to all scientists supporting either side of the debate is not rational. Nor is it rational to dismiss the *research* of scientists just because they are activists or do something you don’t like. For instance, I respect the research of Dr. Curry, even though I think some of her views are misguided.
“When people lack the expertise and skill to evaluate the science behind a claim, they typically rely on heuristics such as substituting judgment about something complex (i.e. climate science) with judgment about something simple (i.e. the character of people who speak about climate science) and are therefore vulnerable to misleading information. ”
(http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa49f)
Because there is such political division in this debate and among people in general, this is a big problem. Assumptions are regularly made about others’ views based on little knowledge of them. In turn, people dismiss what those others have to say. That’s bias.
If people think that the views expressed in posts here are balanced and rational, they are not thinking rationally themselves. It’s hypocritical to insult other groups for being biased.
There’s no reason to single out anyone here for lack of knowledge; we all have strengths and weaknesses. (My knowledge of ecology and evolution is highly relevant since they are intimately associated with climate.)
Sorry my post is so long. It’s on topic, though it’s hard to imagine I could persuade anybody here of anything. Tough crowd!
Indeed Kristi. Your last two sentences reveal that we are on the same wavelength.
I became a sceptic when I read the IPCC definition of Radiative Forcing which fails to comply with thermodynamic law. When I read it I concluded that if I plugged this purported energy flux, as defined, of circa 1.6 Watts/sq.m into my kettle; the kettle would never boil.
IMO, It is this gross error that has been responsible for many of the anomalies, confusions and dubious conclusions which riddle the whole concept of CAGW.
Therein lies the nakedness of the Emperor.
The definition is found in WG1 section of the IPCC Assessment Reports, if anyone cares to have a look.
Bingo. We have a winner
When members of the UNIPCC say that AGW has nothing to with the environment of saving the Earth, as have the Club Of Rome, but it’s about creating the right conditions for the establishment of a Globul Guvment, then all the “science” falls by the wayside & becomes irrelevent!
“We must rely on authority when it comes to science. Laymen trying to practice or debate science just don’t have the depth of knowledge required to make informed demonstrations or decisions, but instead oversimplify. ”
No, actually we must rely on the Scientific Method. I learned it in high school. It’s not that complicated. Any layman can understand it.
Simply stated:
A scientific theory is tested through experiment or observation. If it fails, then the theory is falsified.
Forty years of failed predictions (often called “projections” by the charlatans) means the theory of CAGW has been falsified. No PHD required to see that.
On top of that, an objective person reading the Climategate emails will quickly realize that this is a political movement, not a scientific one. People conspiring to delete emails, hide their work, dodge FOIA requests, corrupt the peer review process, and blackball legitimate scientists, are not scientists they are politically motivated propagandists.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have less than forty years of global temperature data. We know the climate has changed. We know that it has been both warmer and colder than it is know, but we don’t know why.
Unfortunately, because of monetary and political reasons, Climate Science has fixated on taxation, regulation, and banning fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear, and the field has regressed and not advanced.
THE MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KRISTI SILBER AND RICHARD FEYNMAN
*******************************************************
“We must rely on authority when it comes to science.”
Kristi Silber
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Richard P. Feynman
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”
― Richard P. Feynman
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
― Richard P. Feynman
Oh, wait!
Richard Feynman was a big-time science authority!
Your going to induce cognitive dissonance here!
Will she resolve it through the religion of the church of omnipotent greenhouse in carbon?
Tune in next week.
Alan,
I agree wholeheartedly with the first two statements. The last could be interpreted different ways. It could be saying, “Experts are ignorant, so don’t believe them.” Or it could be, “Science is the recognition that there is always much more to learn, and the conclusions of science are always open to being disproved.” I think it is the latter.
*We must rely on authority when it comes to science. Laymen trying to practice or debate science just don’t have the depth of knowledge required to make informed demonstrations or decisions*
Hmmm.
Not many takers on this site, it seems.
You would have had a hard time explaining that to Gallileo. Or any of the founder members of the Royal Society for the Advancement of Science.
seekeroftruth,
You don’t think Galileo built on the work of other scientists? Recognizing authority doesn’t mean accepting all science that was done before, it means using that which is solid enough to be used as a working hypothesis. It means building on previous work, rather than having to do every foundational experiment again oneself.
Of course, going against “authority” can also be part of science – Galileo and Darwin are examples of scientists whose work refuted the authority of Christian beliefs. Einstein proved that the long-standing laws of physics weren’t right – but he, too, recognized the “authority” of Newton: “The whole development of our ideas concerning natural phenomena, which has been described above, may be conceived as an organic development of Newton’s thought. ” (Einstein)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-on-newton.html
I think I should have defined what I meant by “authority” to begin with!
Sorry but that is internally incoherent. You say we should trust authority because we cannot be experts, then say “look up the evidence”. You say say trust the experts when experts across numerous fields of science are continually being proven wrong – because that is how science works. You say models can never be accurate but then do not define whether they are accurate enough to spend trillions on changing our economy. You say the models cannot model but simply that we should trust the models. You say only the experts can know the truth and disprove things, but that is not what science shows us, even in recent years.
This is nonsense for an area of science that doesn’t matter to most, but dangerous nonsense when it affects the lives of billions.
Phoenix44,
“You say we should trust authority because we cannot be experts, then say “look up the evidence”.
How is this incoherent? My point was that we should verify for ourselves what is fed to us in blogs, by the media…even what I say. I’m not always right, I know that. I’m saying, show some curiosity and skepticism when it comes to the statements of people who are not experts in the field. Sometimes the statements of “authorities” will differ. Then it’s time for judgement. This is where the consensus opinion of experts is important. Still, one should always keep in mind that science is not “proof.” Authority is not the same as truth, it is only the best we have to work with.
You say say trust the experts when experts across numerous fields of science are continually being proven wrong – because that is how science works.”
Not continually, but sometimes. There are some areas of science that are so well-supported, they become “theories,” which is to say, they ought to be taken as fact. But it is ALWAYS the nature of science that it allows disproof.
“You say models can never be accurate but then do not define whether they are accurate enough to spend trillions on changing our economy.”
That’s an entirely different question. I’m talking about science, not policy.
“You say the models cannot model but simply that we should trust the models.”
I never said they couldn’t model! I believe that some of the projections should be taken into account when deciding policy, but that we shouldn’t go overboard. There should be compromise. Shooting for net zero emissions is way too much of an economic hardship. But I see no reason why we should try to boost the coal industry where alternative energy source make more sense, not just from a climate change standpoint, but for public and environmental health reasons. I believe we can cut emissions through changes in our habits, buying choices and land use. I don’t see why regulations to improved fuel efficiency in cars is wrong. Conservation of energy is not just a climate issue, it’s one of pollution control and saving resources for the future, among other things.
“You say only the experts can know the truth and disprove things, but that is not what science shows us, even in recent years.”
No, I didn’t say experts know the “truth.” I do believe that it is difficult for laymen to disprove the work that experts have done. Not impossible, but highly improbable. That is based in part on the efforts I have seen where people try to do so. Doing quality scientific research is not easy.
You say this area of science doesn’t matter to most. Maybe “most” won’t be affected by it, I don’t think that’s true. Even if only a quarter of humanity is negatively affected, we could all share the cost. Just as an example, what if, 50 years from now, the coastal real estate market suddenly goes under? I read an article in which Miami Beach residents were interviewed, expressing worries that one day the flooding would cause a bust in the housing market. Some were electing to sell now, before it happened. If that happened on a large scale (following a couple king tides in a year, for instance), it could cause a ripple effect through the economy as a whole.
Then there are global effects of extreme weather, thawing of permafrost, melting of glaciers, etc. that pose economic and human health threats. Yes, there are benefits, too, but I think the benefits are stressed and the threats are not fully considered by those who wish to downplay the effects of AGW.
Whatever we do, there will be costs. We can ignore the issue and leave all the costs for later, or we can do things that have benefits not in the realm of climate change, but in other ways (pollution control, human health, energy conservation, etc.).
Oops, “…not ONLY in the realm of climate change…”
Kristi Silber
Supercilious, condescending and downright ignorant perception.
A qualification does not mean one is a good scientist, engineer, teacher, or anything else.
Science emerged from laymen asking questions. It is not necessary to have a qualification to ask difficult to answer questions.
For example: Where are all the empirical studies which demonstrate that, in the real world, CO2 causes the planet to warm?
How about answering that layman’s question with your pompous and arrogant belief in your own abilities?
How many times have I asked you that self same question, and the best you come up with is to threaten to ignore me.
Believe it or not, your humble purpose in life as a scientist, if you are indeed a scientist, is to serve the common man, the layman. In other words, me. Your job is to deliver solutions to problems we laymen encounter day to day. Without us you wouldn’t earn a crust. Scientists could propose all the solutions they want but unless the layman is prepared to pay for them, they are redundant.
So kindly refrain from reducing laymen to some bit part in the imagined grand scheme of your life. We ask the questions, you provide the solutions. Simples.
Mr. Scot, I suggest a new adjective/adverb for the blog – Supersilberilious (say that after a few ales). We already know what it implies.
Perhaps Supersilberous is more correct.
Pop Piasa,
“Supersilberous”
You flatter me!
But seriously, it’s not my fault so many have made comments addressing me.
HotScot,
I said I would ignore you if you kept insulting me. It wasn’t just a threat.
I learned early in my climate modeling studies that :
“A model is a symbolic device built to simulate and predict aspects of behavior of a system”
https://www.colorado.edu/engineering/cas/courses.d/IFEM.d/IFEM.Ch06.d/IFEM.Ch06.Slides.d/IFEM.Ch06.Slides.pdf
Kristi,
Except as faith based tools the GCMs offer no use.
They are graphs less accurate than investment sales brochures.
Except produced at massive tax payer expense.
The problem is that “climate change” (which is a tautology in itself) is a theory that only stands when the evidence against it is ignored or explained away. Sort of like a religious beliefs.
One of the things that is most annoying is how the “climate change” believers spend so much time rationalizing away their cowardice to debate, much less honestly dialogue, with skeptics.
Kristi: “An oceanographer can’t talk shop with an atmospheric physicist – they wouldn’t understand each other, even if they both study climate.
You make it sound like the Tower of Babbel.
Kristy: “We must rely on authority when it comes to science.”
NO! We must rely on logic and proof.
Kristi: “Laymen trying to practice or debate science just don’t have the depth of knowledge required to make informed demonstrations or decisions, but instead oversimplify.”
Well, it doesn’t take a genius to recognize pure speculation about humans and the climate, and to recognize that the Alarmists do not have the evidence to back up their claims. They, say “Trust Us” but have already proven themselves untrustworthy with their Climategate conspiracies to manipulate the surface temperature data to make it appear that the temperature is rising in concert with CO2 levels. This is the big lie.
All the Alarmists had in the form of evidence were these bogus, bastardized surface temperature charts but even that won’t be enough if the temperatures continue to flatline or drop.
No evidence, Kristi. Show me. I’m from Missouri when it comes to CAGW.
Tom,
Apparently Kristi has never heard of GFD, among the many disciplines shared by oceanographers and atmospheric physicists, who most assuredly can and do talk to each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysical_fluid_dynamics
Sometimes, they’re the same people, as in the case for example of atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen:
On the Role of Sea Surface Temperature Gradients in Forcing Low-Level Winds and Convergence in the Tropics
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044%3C2418%3AOTROSS%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Hard to talk about the air without also considering the land and sea.
Tom,
“NO! We must rely on logic and proof.”
Logic, absolutely. Proof is for mathematicians.
Once someone thinks he has proof, questioning stops. That is why science doesn’t deal in proof. Science is always open to better explanations. Imagine if science thought Newton had proved the laws of physics. Einstein would never have demonstrate the Theory of Relativity. It’s a THEORY. That is the highest form of fact science has to offer. (The “laws” of physics are called that by tradition and because they are so fundamental that everything else is built upon them.)
I am so tired of hearing about Climategate as if it shows that all climate research is bogus. It’s ridiculous to make that extrapolation based on the actions of a few scientists, especially when many of the emails were widely and willfully misinterpreted. No one claims that there aren’t scientists with big egos. No one claims that they never act unprofessionally. No one claims that they never make mistakes in their research. Contrarian scientists do all of these things, too. There is no conspiracy here. (I avoid this topic because I know there will be a backlash. I will not debate it. I’m tired of it. It’s an excuse to dismiss all climate research.)
What evidence do you need? Glaciers and sea ice are melting. Sea levels and temperatures are rising. Permafrost is thawing. Season lengths are changing (organisms are showing different seasonal patterns). Populations of plants and animals are changing their ranges. Precipitation events are becoming more intense. This is off the top of my head, I’m sure there are more. These are all documented changes happening on a scale of decades, not centuries. Some changes, like the break-up in sea ice north of Greenland, have never been recorded before. Climate is changing, and the only way to account for it fully is if you include the impact of CO2. Yes, there is an element of natural variability, of course there is. But that is not enough to explain what we are seeing.
If you want documentation, you should search for it yourself, otherwise you will accuse me of cherry-picking data or something. If you want evidence, seek the evidence, don’t expect someone here to show it to you. That is the way to learn.
If you are going to reject all authority, though, you will also reject all evidence, and that’s the problem! Once you are conditioned to distrust science, there is nothing that you can learn from it. This is exactly why the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda campaign was so successful: it taught people distrust. It was around before Climategate, which is one reason Climategate made the impact it did.
There is ample evidence for the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda, direct from their own paperwork. It names contrarians such as Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and Sherman Idso. An Edison Electric memo from 1991 has a list of strategies, and the first one is “Reposition global warming as theory, not fact.” REPOSITION. Change what is accepted to something that questionable. And you know who was targeted? Conservatives. That’s one reason the political divide grew as it did, making science a political controversy long before policy was a big issue.
Show some skepticism, some curiosity…look for the evidence and don’t rely on blogs or the media or biased books to hand you the facts.
We must rely on authority when it comes to science. False positive projection and logical fallacy.
soooo projection.
and a lady waving her we we… hyenous!
Bob,
So, who do you think we should rely on? Ourselves? Should we each say, “I know best! The weather is just like it’s always been! My buddies tell me I’m right!”
How is it a logical fallacy? How a false positive projection?
Yes it’s a brilliant idea to rely on experts!
“Heavier than air flying machines are impossible!” Lord Kelvin, President ofthe Royal Society, 1895!
He was bang target with that one, wasn’t he, one of the World’s leading scientists?
“everything that can be invented has been invented.”
Charles H. Duel: Commissioner of US patent office in 1899.
Alan,
I never said experts can’t be wrong. That is what science is about: no science is taken as proof. But since evidence doesn’t just appear out of nowhere, at some point we have to trust the work of scientists collectively to give us a working hypothesis. When that hypothesis is supported by enough evidence, it becomes a scientific “theory,” which is as close to fact as science gets. Even then, some super-genius can come along and build on that theory, refine it at a whole new level, as Einstein did when he came up with the Theory of Relativity.
“We must rely on authority when it comes to science…………………………………. I concentrate on pointing out logical fallacies”
I believe you missed that logical fallacy Kristi.
Years of study do not equal truth. The Nazis had years of study to conclude the aryan race was superior.
Carolyn Fortuna
https://www.linkedin.com/in/carolyn-fortuna-9b1b521a/
“Digital Literacy & Learning Scholar— for Environmental, Sports, and Educational Spaces
Providence, Rhode Island Area”
“I’m a digital literacy and learning professional who has specific interests in environmental sustainability, sports culture as a reflection of society, and secondary English education. Sometimes these three coalesce! I offer professional development workshops across the U.S. to help others learn about the potential for digital literacy and learning across all topics and issues.”
____________________________
The above is from Ms Fortuna’s LinkedIn page. It also lists her education majors as English and Education.
She has avoided the “hard stuff”, science courses etc. in her years at university. It would probably be a shock for her to learn about the Scientific Method.
Nevertheless, Ms Fortuna somehow feels competent to opine on matters of climate science, energy and public policy. She is clearly NOT qualified to do so.
When society gets energy wrong, as so many pundits and politicians do, they do real harm. They drive up energy costs, reduce energy reliability and increase Excess Winter Mortality, which now averages about 2 million Excess Winter Deaths per year worldwide, and about 100,000 per year in the USA – that’s the equivalent of two 9-11’s per week for 17 weeks every year.
If society were to ban fossil fuels overnight, which currently comprise 85% of total global primary energy, most people in the developed world would be dead within a few weeks or months. That means you and your family.
Instead, I suggest that Ms Fortuna should opine on matters that are less risky to the general public. With the proliferation in tattoos and piercings, perhaps do-it-yourself trepanning be the next popular trend she can latch onto. Get on the leading edge, give it a try – it’s a lot safer than fools messing around with energy policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning
“I’m a digital literacy and learning professional who has specific interests in environmental sustainability, sports culture as a reflection of society, and secondary English education.” What the heck is a “learning professional”? Is that someone who is a professional learner? If so, she should study history. Or, is she someone who is a professional at how someone learns (a re-educator)? If so, she should study history.
Here’s my guess:
Learning Professional = untrained teacher
I think learning professional is a new age term which refers to somebody who thinks they have knowledge, but has neither training in actual educational teaching, nor knowledge in the subject matter.
Sort of like calling a garbage collector a ‘Sanitation Engineer’.
It’s either a baby or a colorful clump of cells. Anyway, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming would be a real threat. Anthropogenic Planned Parenthood is a clear and present risk to human rights. However, climate change, not so much.
+42… million
If the threat of climate change doesn’t kill them, Planned Parenthood will.
It’s their 21st Century version of 1920’s Eugenics, that is, to eliminate the undesirables.
But then the Nazis came along and took the Liberals’ eugenics to its next logical level. That ruined the Liberals’ plans, made their sterilization ideas un-PC.
Promoting transgenderism in adolescents and teenagers now in the 21st Century is the Liberals’ new strategy for self-sterilization. Gets rid of the ugliness of forced sterilization when the teenager simply declares their intent for an unreversible sex change operation or hormone therapy.
“the ugliness of forced sterilization”
What on earth are you talking about?
Certainly as an enlightened modern well educated person you know about the “progressives” of the early 20th century promoting forced sterilization on ” undesirables”?
Modern schools make it a point to never bring up the dark history of the current leftists.
Modern leftists know better than to question the motives of those who are promising a life filled with free stuff.
There is a big difference between the sterilization of “undesirables” by the progressives, and the solution the right wing fascists had for “undesirables” in Europe circa 1930/40.
No, there isn’t. The NSDAP closely followed American and other eugenics advocates in their basic belief system, but took the system to it’s logical extreme.
No they did not Halla, Americans did not consider a that person’s religion/cultural heritage made them “undesirable.”
If one reads some of the anti-immigrant screeds of eugenicists in the pre-WWII era, religion and ethnicity did enter into what they considered undesirable. While American eugenicists aimed at poor white trash as well, consider who people such as Margaret Sanger disapproved of.
Show me Mr. Halla, where in the pre-WW2 American eugenicists writings where they claimed Jews were “undesirable.”
One ready reference on eugenics, especially the references, is Steven Jay Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man”. They did not concentrate on Jews, but as Eastern European immigrants, as well as blacks and Asians generally.
“They did not concentrate on Jews”
..
Thank you very much Mr. Halla.
..
Nice for someone to make my point for me.
If someone has a long list of bigotries, that somehow excuses any one of the list? The KKK also hated Catholics and Jews, but concentrated on blacks. That does not give them a pass.
A good many eugenicists only approved of persons who would have been approved of by the Know Nothing Party.
Fascism is a form of socialism Remy. So Hitler was just an extension of your progressives and their desire to eliminate undesirables.
No MarkW, Jonah Goldberg from the National Review is wrong.
Remy, why is Jonah Goldberg wrong? His history is a bit argumentative, but accurate.
I will not address your strawman Halla
How is anything I wrote a strawman?
Halla, Goldberg is wrong because he’s attempting to re-write history. Fascism in Europe was right wing, not left wing. He’s historically inaccurate.
“Right wing” means several different things. The close relationship between US progressives, such as Wilson or FDR, and the European fascist movements in unavoidable. Right wing in a European sense was more royalist and traditionalist. Calling the fascists or the NSDAP “right wing” was a Stalinist libel.
Calling the fascists or the NSDAP “right wing” is historically accurate. Sorry Halla, you can’t re-write history.
The NSDAP had a state-run economic program, which is not “conservative” by the US definition, although it is by European standards. Their regard for tradition or religion was actively hostile, and therefore “progressive”. You must be relying on Stalinist sources.
Fascism arose in Italy out of syndicalism, a form of socialism. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party began as a socialist movement, but some of its more Leftist elements were purged after coming to power.
Nationalism, imperialism and rabid racism were common among 19th and 20th century socialists, like the Fabians and Jack London.
Stalin’s socialism in one country was effectively Fascism, ie national socialism. He was even planning genocide against Jews when he died. He’d already bumped many Jewish Old Bolsheviks, although Kaganovich, architect of the Ukrainian genocide, somehow survived to die as the last OB, in 1991, to witness the fall of the USSR. Like the Austrian Hitler, Stalin was an outsider, from Georgia.
So, Left and Right don’t mean much in this context. Both Nazi Germany and Communist USSR were totalitarian, expansionist, militarized states practicing mass murder against despised classes, ethnicities, infirmities, religions and ideologies.
Meant “bumped off”, as with the ice ax to Trotsky’s head in Mexico.
Tom,
You’re right that conservatism has or had a different meaning in Europe than the US. Hayek wrote, “Why I’m Not a Conservative” because he considered himself a classical liberal rather than a modern conservative, in the mold of Reagan and Thatcher. He supported their free market policies, but not necessarily their social programs, or possibly even military adventures, despite his sharing anti-communism with them.
Besides which, as you note, as a European, conservatism originally meant to him monarchism or authoritatianism, not necessarily adherence to free markets.
Exactly. I have seen a discussion that in the European sense, the US never had a “right wing”, which originally meant royalist. The tories left with the British, and the first more conservative party was led by the likes of Hamilton, a pro-business and anti-slavery advocate.
There is a strong tendency to try to shoehorn political parties a few hundred (or even one hundred) years ago into current political alignments.
LMFAO @ Tillman: “Stalin’s socialism in one country was effectively Fascism
…
Your attempt to re-write history fails miserably. Next thing you’re going to claim is that the current POTUS is not a fascist.
It is extremely entertaining to watch all the right wing adherents on this site, make excuses and apologies because their heritage is born out of the right wing fascism that was in Europe in the 1930’s & 40’s. I too would be embarrassed if you could trace my political history to those fascist movements. But, history is history, and you are stuck with it. Goldberg tried to make it less painful for you folks, but his gross misinterpretation of the words and labels is pathetic.
Remy, My great-grandfather ran for mayor of Rock Springs, Wyoming in the late 1900’s on the Socialist Labor Party ticket, so you assumptions as to the politics of anyone is negligent.
Try actually testing your presumptions about politics and history, with the goal of proving your current gurus wrong. The public education system in the US has been (supply your own favorite epithet) for a very long time, but actually reading material you disagree with might help in dealing with your condition.
Remy,
Not rewriting history. The charge that Stalin was a fascist was made at the time, often by other socialists. They pointed out that the Stalinist USSR shared the four major “pillars of fascism”: authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism and preserved class hierarchy (the Nomenklatura). Not to mention persecuted minorities, such as Ukrainian peasants starved to death in their millions, and deported ethnic minorities.
Best to have studied history before presuming to comment upon it.
Trump is not a fascist. There would be no free press or free elections if he were, nor would the DoJ and FBI be investigating him. As should be obvious.
Remy Mermelstein September 18, 2018 at 1:44 pm
That modern American conservatism owes anything to fascism is a delusion.
Free market, free speech, small government conservatism is the opposite of fascism, a form of the biggest government, with tight control of the economy (and all else) by the regime.
“Progressivism”, by contrast, is fascistic.
Tilman says Stalin advocated: “..preserved class hierarchy”
…
WRONG.
..
No wonder you fail at history. Seems to me you never heard about the “revolution of the Proletariat,” you know, when the worker class would over throw the bourgeoisie.
…
PS, the POTUS is an authoritarian, a racist, a nationalist, who claims the press is the “enemy of the people”. He is persecuting Muslims, and deporting Mexicans…….oh…..and imprisoning children.
Hey Tillman, the current POTUS displays authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism and a desire to preserve class hierarchy. By your definition that makes him a fascist.
Remy Mermelstein September 18, 2018 at 2:08 pm
What part of “dictatorship of the proletariat” don’t you understand?
Proletariat means “working class”, hence its dictatorship preserves its privileged position. In practice of course, it wasn’t workers but Communist Party operatives who ruled, although workers were given preference over the bourgeoisie and former aristocrats. The more successful farmers were murdered and starved.
Remy,
Trump is not an authoritarian. If he were, as noted, we would not enjoy our civil liberties. He ran on a platform not of militarism, but to withdraw from the world, although he did keep his promise to destroy ISIS. He shows no desire to preserve class hierarchy. On the contrary, his policy, which is succeeding, is to make the poor and middle class better off.
He’s more patriotic than nationalistic. However, you can’t have a nation state without borders. He’s not against people from other countries, just those who come here illegally.
His dad might have been a racist, but the president isn’t.
Wow, just plain wow Tillman……..you are seriously mentally and historically lacking……..nowhere, in the past, and up to today has the “working class” ever taken power. The “billionaire class” all over the world won’t let it happen………ever.
…
Try to remember that the “right wing” wishes to preserve the status quo…… You think Stalin wanted to preserve the class structure????/ LOL
Remy,
You’re all mixed up, but at least amusing. Thanks.
Stalin wanted to preserve a new class hierarchy, not the old one. Again, as should be obvious.
Likewise, you persist in imagining that fascism means the same thing as “Right Wing”. In early 20th century Europe, fascists wanted to overthrow the ruling classes, ie the aristocracy. They were revolutionaries. Mussolini did keep the king, but the Fascists had all the power. The Nazis did let some of the haute bourgeoisie run the armaments industry and some other industries, but only as long as they did what he told them to do.
You don’t understand the labels you bandy about so carelessly.
“Trump is not an authoritarian”
…
He comes from the world of business, where he ran his organization in an authoritarian manner. He doesn’t know how to deal with government. He’s angry at the DOJ/Sessions cause they won’t do his bidding. He writes unconstitutional executive orders, which thankfully our courts block. He separates children from their parents with no legal basis. He is at war with the press, claiming the press is the “enemy. ” He’s militaristic because he increased the budget of the military. The poor are no better off, and the middle class is suffering, but don’t worry, the rich got a huge tax break. He’s ballooning the federal debt, although he said he’d pay it off quickly. If he’s a “patriot” why does he kiss Putin’s buttocks? He’s a racist, and the proof of it was his adherence to “birtherism.” Oh, and he’s a serial adulterer, who pays porn stars $150K for sex, proud of the fact that he can “get away with it” cause he’s a star.
Remy, details matter.
The bit about “separating kids from their parents” is due to a consent decree signed by the Clinton administration on how long minor may be kept in detention. What was ended was “catch and release”, of giving a court date to illegal migrants, and not having any way to ensure their making that court date.
Another talking point!
Tillman, history can’t be changed. The fascist leaders of Italy and Germany before WW2 were right wing. Your feeble attempt at changing the meaning of the “labels” doesn’t work . The capitalists in Germany retained ownership of industry, something that would not happen in a “socialist” environment.
Halla says: ” is due to a consent decree signed by the Clinton administration ”
…
NOPE.
…
Clinton did not separate children. Bush did not separate children. Obama did not separate children. Trump did.
..
Your spin sucks. It was done as a matter of “policy” of this administration.
Do you understand “catch and release”?
Remy,
Again, please study the Nazi economy before commenting upon it. Hitler permitted private ownership, but directed what industry should produce. He favored big business over small business, since he wanted the products of heavy industry, ie armaments. Stalin likewise pushed industrialization in order to arm the USSR.
The Nazi form of socialism was government spending, mandating what German industry produced. It was militarist socialism, harking back to Bismarck’s institution of social security for workers, and heavy reliance on the “defense” industry.
After coming to power in 1933, the Nazis increased German military spending faster than any other state in peacetime. The military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the ’40s, perhaps not surprisingly, given the war.
I recommend Adam Tooze’s 2006 study, “The Wages of Destruction: The Making and the Breaking of the Nazi Economy”.
>>
The capitalists in Germany retained ownership of industry . . . .
<<
The ownership was a facade. They may have retained ownership of their industries, but the government controlled them. The Nazis were socialists–plain and simple.
The simple definition of socialism is: “government ownership and control of the means of production.” Control is more important. Even if you own something, lacking control over it means you don’t really own it.
Jim
Jim
Tillman says: ” Hitler permitted private ownership” ….yes, and in a socialist economy the state owns the means of production.
..
Tillman says: ” Stalin likewise pushed industrialization” …… yes, but the state owned the means of production under Stalin……unlike Germany pre-WW2
..
Guess you need to review the stuff you read about political economy, because you seem to be ignorant of it.
…
If Hitler was “left wing” why did he send communists to the gas chambers?
Remy, if you actually knew a bit of history, the most avid killer of Bolsheviks was Stalin in the purges, so by your standard, Dzugashvilli was “right wing”.
Masterson: “The Nazis were socialists–plain and simple.”
…
Nope…
….
The owners did not distribute the PROFITS to the people, they kept them for themselves, which is what happens in a capitalistic economy.
>>
Nope…
<<
From the book “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg:
It doesn’t sound right-wing to me.
Jim
Jim,
They were also environmentalists, and turned kids against their parents.
Archetypal SJWs!
Masterson: Goldberg is not a historian. He’s a spin doctor that works for National Review/American Enterprise Institute. Please cite a credible historian because Goldberg isn’t one.
Remy, try reading any general history of the Third Reich, such as “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shirer. Shirer was an FDR Democrat as far as his political leanings, and formerly worked for NBC.
J. Goldberg is commenting on fairly well established history.
Tillman: “They were also environmentalists, and turned kids against their parents.”
…
Got a citation for that nonsense? (your desperation is entertaining)
>>
Please cite a credible historian . . . .
<<
One who agrees with you, no doubt.
Jim
Actually Masterson, I would prefer it if you could cite a credible historian that agrees with Goldberg.
Remy Mermelstein September 18, 2018 at 3:47 pm
The desperate denial of reality is all yours. Not only historians but much of the lay public knows that Nazis were environmentalists and urged Hitler Youth to rat out their families.
Himmler’s pagan SS religion worshiped Nature. The concept of “ecology” was invented by a German approved of by the Nazi regime.
But since you apparently are unaware of these facts, please read this report on an article by Dr. Boaz Neumann of Tel Aviv University’s Department of History, entitled, “Between Brown and Green: Nazism, Holocaust, Ecology”:
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/of-nazis-and-other-nature-lovers-1.5236743
Dr. Neumann concludes that, while Nazis were the first environmentalists, rather than conservationists, the ultimate effect of their ideology was, obviously, bad for the environment, with much of Europe burned to the ground and landscapes laid waste.
You could easily find many more links to sources on Nazi environmentalism. It’s common knowledge among people who have actually studied history.
Tillman, Ronald Reagan was an environmentalist. In fact, he created the EPA. Do you know if he urged children to “rat out” their parents?
Remy, IIRC you are quite young. Nixon created the EPA, not Reagan. Do a bit of more reading on what for you is history.
Logic from Tillman:
Nazis were environmentalists.
Ronald Reagan was an environmentalist
..
Therefore Ronald Reagan was a Nazi
>>
Ronald Reagan was an environmentalist. In fact, he created the EPA.
<<
And I thought the EPA was established on December 2, 1970. That would place it well within Nixon’s administration. I can see why you want your own historians.
Jim
Remy Mermelstein September 18, 2018 at 4:19 pm
As I keep saying, you really ought to study history before presuming to comment upon it.
Or have lived through the period upon which you choose to comment.
Reagan was not famous as an environmentalist. Google “James G. Watt”.
Nixon founded the EPA, but he was not a Nazi.
I stated the simple fact that, like the Nazis, today’s “Progressives” are radical environmentalists.
ROTFLMFAO @ Halla: Nixon?…….you are an old fart….no wonder you spend your time on this site.
…
But then, if Nixon was an environmentalist, he must have been a Nazi….right?
Considering my politics at the time, I probably called Tricky Dick that.
Donald, Tillman is pushing the “guilt by association” thing.
..
It’s a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Remy,
I’m not pushing guilt by association.
You seem to have forgotten how this discussion got started. You claimed that Goldberg is wrong, denying his evidence that Nazis shared much with modern socialists (and that indeed National Socialism is a form of socialism, which also then had an ostensibly International avatar). Among the many similarities between Nazis and today’s socialists is environmentalism.
I never said that all environmentalists are Nazis. So the logical fallacy is all yours. From the fact that Nazis were environmentalists does not follow the conclusion that environmentalists are Nazis, as I’ve already pointed out below.
Tillman, history can’t be changed.
indeed it can’t so please stop trying to do so Remy. Your lack of historical knowledge is glaringly obvious in every post you make. The fascist leaders of Europe before WW2 were mostly all from the political left. and the EPA started under Nixon, not Reagan.
Remy says: “Donald, Tillman is pushing the “guilt by association” thing.”
You’re the only one doing that and you are projecting in a feeble attempt to disguise it. Go back to the school you truant troll .
I doubt you know much about the awful barriers transexuals have to overcome.
I have transexual friends – they haven’t decided to be trans just because some liberal told them to. It was a dawning realisation for them as they made their often difficult way through life, not something they thought they’d become because it looked fashionable.
Please leave the (invariably religious) bigotry out of a discussion about the farce that is CAGW.
I thought the PC word now was transgender? Even though gender isn’t the same as sex.
Transgender, transexual, whatever the latest label is.
i like the word dysgenic.
darwin will take care of the freaks.
Tillman: If Nixon founded the EPA, he must have been an environmentalist. According to your logic that makes him a Nazi.
Donald,
That’s your logic, not mine.
The Nazis were all the things which Goldberg says they were, plus environmentalists. It does not follow logically that all environmentalists are Nazis.
The point is that today’s Progressives and socialists have far more in common with Nazis than do conservatives.
John, not surprising considering that the fascism movement in 20th century Europe arose from the left, and the National Socialist party (NAZIs) arose from that fascism movement.
Donald,
That’s your logic. Quit projecting.
John Tillman,
“The concept of “ecology” was invented by a German approved of by the Nazi regime.”
Nonsense! Even the term was coined earlier, by Ernst Haeckl in 1877.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/plants-and-animals/botany/botany-general/history-ecology
Whoops, 1866.
“Some of the latest climate modeling indicates that ships and submarines may be able to adapt to sea level rise.”
I don’t normally like articles that ridicule, but that’s funny right there.