Kind of like Al Gore
Bookworm on Jan 11 2011 at 7:56 pm | Filed under: Climate change
Doesn’t the information below about the lying autism/vaccination doc remind you of Green Billionaire Al Gore and his fellow wealth redistribution (into their own pocket) fellow travelers?
According to new research published in today’s BMJ, Wakefield’s motive for the fraud was money — and lots of it. Wakefield “planned secret businesses intended to make huge sums of money, in Britain and America, from his now-discredited allegations,” according to a BMJ press release.
Email This Post To A Friend
105 Responses to “Kind of like Al Gore”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
bookworm: Doesn’t the information below about the lying autism/vaccination doc remind you of Green Billionaire Al Gore and his fellow wealth redistribution (into their own pocket) fellow travelers?
No. The vaccine scare has always been scant on evidence and never found a consensus or even broad agreement within the medical science community. On the other hand, the hypothesis of anthropomorphic climate change is widely supported within the peer community and is continuing to lead to new insights. There are still a lot of open questions, though; in particular, long term projections based on various proposed human responses.
Widely supported by hacks, bribed scientists, and made up data.
Ever since ClimateGate exposed the fraudulent scientific practices at the heart of the global warming movement, their house built on sand has been crumbling on all sides.
The most recent outrage: The UK’s Climate Center was set to release an official statement in October warning that nation that a severely cold winter period was imminent, beginning in late November. The Cameron government – sadly – remains heavily invested in the global warming fraud. *THEY SUPPRESSED THEIR OWN INSTITUTION* and forced it to release, instead, a report claiming a mild winter.
Based on NO evidence at all. Based solely on the global warming “scenario”.
The BBC has filed a Freedom Of Information request and the truth of this latest outrage against science is coming out now. This government malfeasance will actually lead to either prosecution of government officials for this deliberate act of censorship, or at a minimum quite a few firings of high-rankinig officials within the UK government. The article link below supposes that the global warming advocates within the UK government are about to take one very heavy hit over this act of censorship.
As the evidence accumlates, datum by datum… can anyone conclude otherwise, that we haven’t seen this level of government collusion against science since the theocratic days of the Catholic Church when it excommunicated Galileo for claiming the earth was NOT the center of a universe that revolved around it???
This is why I’ve been saying for years that the global warming fraud has looked far more like a religion than anything remotely resembling science. Their models have not, in ten years, produced even ONE correct prediction. And now we have a model-based prediction that came true – and these fraudulent assholes suppressed it!
This link outlines the basics of the story and indicates several reasons – the cost to the country, estimated at 15 billion pounds, and the risk to lives – why they are beginning to take this official act of censorship and repression very seriously.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/11/the-plot-thickens-bbc-hits-uk-govt-with-freedom-of-information-demand-in-cold-winter-forecast-fiasco/
And it’s just one more small datum point in the massive accumulation of evidence against the fraudlent scientists and their political hacks who are perpetrating the scheme against the rest of us. Is it all merely due to the massive amounts of money that flows to the institutions supporting the fraud? Is it merely due to the religious fervor of the advocates, bereft of all scientific method and reasoning and demands for actual proof, or model predictions that actually come true?
Mike, facts have never convinced religious fanatics. Why should it in this case? heh
I would say it is money and ideology. Money, by itself, just attracts greedy people. But combined with ideology, it attracts evil people as well.
thus money is used to make evil self-sustaining, so that it can grow. Whereas if people just wanted money, they would grab money and use it to make more money and be satisfied. Ideology isn’t satisfied with just having money. It wants to use money to do something.
George Soros is a typical example of the confusion between evil and money.
Mike Devx: The UK’s Climate Center was set to release an official statement in October warning that nation that a severely cold winter period was imminent, beginning in late November.
So, the climate guys were right.
In any case, weather forecasting is still subject to a large degree of uncertainty. That includes seasonal forecasting.
Zachriel, do I understand you correctly to say that you’re comfortable with the fact that weather professionals can’t be expected to predict weather accurately from one day to the next, and also comfortable with claiming that they have pinpoint precision in predicting huge climate trends over the decades? You need to clarify, because I’m confused.
I’m also confused because we were told that climate change would heat up the planet, making the oceans rise, the ice caps disappear, and the world cook. That’s scary stuff. Now we’re being told that the paradoxical effect of climate change is that warming actually creates cooling. Doesn’t that mean we no longer have to worry about rising oceans, disappearing ice caps, and a cooked world? In other words, our worries are over. Again, please explain any disagreement you have with me on this.
bookworm: do I understand you correctly to say that you’re comfortable with the fact that weather professionals can’t be expected to predict weather accurately from one day to the next, and also comfortable with claiming that they have pinpoint precision in predicting huge climate trends over the decades?
No one in the scientific community is claiming “pinpoint precision in predicting huge climate trends”. As we pointed out before, there are a large number of open questions.
Weather and climate are both chaotic systems. Nevertheless, your conceptual understanding is wrong. Even if the average global temperature were perfectly consistent, weather would remain chaotic.
bookworm: I’m also confused because we were told that climate change would heat up the planet, making the oceans rise, the ice caps disappear, and the world cook. That’s scary stuff.
Don’t worry. The world won’t literally cook. Life will go on.
bookworm: Now we’re being told that the paradoxical effect of climate change is that warming actually creates cooling.
Weather and climate are chaotic systems. For instance, Britain is warmer than average for its latitude because of maritime warming associated with the Gulf Stream. If the Gulf Stream were disrupted, it could mean cooler temperatures in Britain, though warmer elsewhere.
I’m still confused, Zachriel. You’re telling me that (a) climate always changes and (b) it’s always chaotic. If that’s true, why are we getting our knickers in a twist about this current iteration of a timeless process? And likewise, if you think life will go on despite the changes again, why are we getting so excited, and trying to rewrite human behavior and world economies?
It seems to me that, although you ascribe to the whole AGW theory, your scientific understanding is firmly rooted in an acknowledgment that the earth’s climate changes, and that life survives — which is pretty much what the global warming skeptics have been saying all along.
Please explain where I’ve misunderstood you.
Bookworm: You’re telling me that (a) climate always changes and (b) it’s always chaotic. If that’s true, why are we getting our knickers in a twist about this current iteration of a timeless process? And likewise, if you think life will go on despite the changes again, why are we getting so excited, and trying to rewrite human behavior and world economies?
Of course life will go on. However, human activity is causing drastic changes far beyond what is expected from natural variation. These changes can severely impact humans and the ecosystem, including effects on crops and disease, resulting in human suffering, migration and political instability.
Bookworm: It seems to me that, although you ascribe to the whole AGW theory, …
That is the strong consensus of the scientific community.
Bookworm: … your scientific understanding is firmly rooted in an acknowledgment that the earth’s climate changes, and that life survives — which is pretty much what the global warming skeptics have been saying all along.
Climate changes naturally. Life will not end. Humans will persevere. Human activity is causing drastic changes far beyond what is expected from natural variation. Global warming skeptics dispute the last point.
There’s plenty of evidence of massive swings of global cooling and warming across geologic time, and even over centuries when humans were building their civilizations. Consider Greenland in an earlier century – the 14th?. When discovered, it was named Greenland because its coasts were green and fertile, and villages were established. Only to be abandoned when that warming period turned much cooler over decades, freezing the coastlands.
According to the evidence I’ve seen, we remain deep in a cooled period, at least over geologic history.
There’s plenty of evidence of localized human-caused warming. One need only compare temperatures within cities and their rural outliers an hour’s driving time in any direction, to note such differences. I can even accept that *minimal* human-caused global warming is likely to be occurring. But there is no proof, of any sort, that AGW (anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming) is occurring on a scale that is notable in any way.
And don’t even get me started on the idea that CO2 – carbon dioxide – can be classified a pollutant. All mammals exhale it as a part of our natural respiration process. All green plants produce it, naturally, during the entire photosynthesis process. To classify IT as a pollutant, one must also classify oxygen as a pollutant. It truly is an insane idea.
The scientific method requires, usually, that data is used to present a hypothesis, and that methods of proof be employed against the hypothesis that would validate it, allowing it to be accepted as a scientific theory. The methods of proof must be reproducible by others who would also engage in such scientific pursuits. Proof is the key.
Global warming advocates cannot be bothered with the scientific method, with actual data, nor with proofs. In ClimateGate, they took their input data and… um, *massaged* it to produce different data, and then destroyed the original data. They *cannot* give you the original data, for they have destroyed it. And, abra-cadabra, their modified data fits their models! But even then, their models must be used to predict behavior, and it has repeatedly failed to do so.
They have no answer for the fact that since 1990, the earth has been cooling. An examination of solar activity has produced models that are far more often correct than wrong – evidence that they at least may be on the right track, incomplete though their science may be. But they at least do not destroy their original data, and their models so far have resulted in predictions that are far more often right than wrong. The global warming “models” have never been right, not even once.
As to the notion that global warming is a “peer-reviewed” and “peer-accepted” science…
Well, those “peer groups” are chosen solely from among those who have already proclaimed their belief that global warming is true. If you contest their data or their models or their conclusions, you are frozen out of the peer review process. (These days you are labelled a heretic, a Neanderthal, a Nazi, etc, as well.) Most interestingly, your funding also dries up. At least that funding that is delivered by governments, taken from taxpayer wallets, that is.
There are quite a few in the scientific community, even in the environmental sciences, who contest against the global warming fraud. And there are many, many who at a minimum do not consider it a proven theory. For those many, it’s still, essentially, a hypothesis. Worthy of further consideration; but they, as they, should, await the proof. Which has not (and will not) be forthcoming.
Mike Devx: There’s plenty of evidence of massive swings of global cooling and warming across geologic time, and even over centuries when humans were building their civilizations.
Yes. Climatologists are quite aware of the historical trends in climate.
Mike Devx: But there is no proof, of any sort, that AGW (anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming) is occurring on a scale that is notable in any way.
The strong consensus of climatological scientific community is that there is substantial evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
Mike Devx: All mammals exhale it as a part of our natural respiration process.
All green plants produce it, naturally, during the entire photosynthesis process. Animals are carbon neutral. Plants are generally carbon neutral, but can sometimes be carbon sinks.
Mike Devx: The scientific method requires, usually, that data is used to present a hypothesis, and that methods of proof be employed against the hypothesis that would validate it, allowing it to be accepted as a scientific theory.
Science doesn’t deal in “proof”, but in evidence.
Mike Devx: The methods of proof must be reproducible by others who would also engage in such scientific pursuits.
Yes, and independent researchers from numerous countries have reached the same conclusion. Humans are having a significant effect on the climate.
Mike Devx: They *cannot* give you the original data, for they have destroyed it.
The original data still exists. If you want to verify it, you can collect it from the original sources like everybody else.
Mike Devx: They have no answer for the fact that since 1990, the earth has been cooling.
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record.
Regarding only your last point, Z, the plethora of lies emanating from the global warmists leaves me doubting those numbers, as does the fact that a lot of their measuring points are, to say the least, suspect:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/11/busted-15-photos-of-climate-cheating.html
Mike Devx: Well, those “peer groups” are chosen solely from among those who have already proclaimed their belief that global warming is true.
That is incorrect. Credible scientists who hold opposing views are given voice in the relevant journals. However, credible skeptics are very few in number, and their conclusions have not been accepted by the vast majority of their peers. Because of the amount of support for anthrogenic climate change, the argument is no longer over whether or not it’s occurring, but its probable trajectory depending on human responses.
Human technology caused the problem, so it’s not unreasonable that human technology can be harnessed to solve the problem. The trick is to do so while maintaining economic growth, especially for the developing world. A number of solutions are quite feasible, and often have other benefits. For instance, reducing dependence on foreign oil would have national security benefits for the U.S.
Bookworm: Regarding only your last point, Z, the plethora of lies emanating from the global warmists leaves me doubting those numbers, as does the fact that a lot of their measuring points are, to say the least, suspect: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/11/busted-15-photos-of-climate-cheating.html
Climatologists are quite aware of the problems related to measurement and variance, and they have a variety of procedures to deal with abnormal readings. Keep in mind that there are multiple countries, with different political systems, and different groups of scientists, all reaching the same conclusion. Again, there’s little remaining scientific doubt about anthropogenic climate change. The question now is the best response.
By the way, when you look at the NOAA temperature anomaly map, please note that some areas of the globe show warming, but other areas are cooler. This might help you understand your original concern above.
I’m always suspicious of defenses of increasingly untenable theories that pile on certain nouns and adjectives to goose the argument:
“Yes. Climatologists are quite aware of the historical trends in climate.” (Some climatologists who do not agree with the theory of AGW are also “quite” aware of said historical trends. So why do they reach different conclusions?)
“The strong consensus of climatological scientific community is that there is substantial evidence of anthropogenic global warming.” (“Consensus” does not need a modifier. It either is or isn’t. In science, consensus is not considered evidence or proof. Also, there is no such thing as a “climatological scientific community.” There are climatologists who agree with a certain theory, and some who don’t. To call them a community is misuse of perfectly good word. Also, what is the point at which evidence passes from being “some” to “substantial?”)
“Science doesn’t deal in ‘proof’, but in evidence. (So, there is no proof of AGW? And, apparently, after the East Anglia fiasco, no evidence either.)
“Yes, and independent researchers from numerous countries have reached the same conclusion. Humans are having a significant effect on the climate.” (I’m not so sure that “independent” researchers dependent on government grants are the world’s most reliable people. “Numerous” countries commits the fallacy of appeal to large numbers by asserting the validity of a position because large numbers of people–or in this case, countries–support it. I notice there is no definition of “significant.” What does that even mean, and what are its manifestations?)
“The original data still exists. If you want to verify it, you can collect it from the original sources like everybody else.” (Translation: I can’t be bothered to show you where it is so I’ll make you do my work for me.)
“Climatologists are quite aware of the problems related to measurement and variance, and they have a variety of procedures to deal with abnormal readings. Keep in mind that there are multiple countries, with different political systems, and different groups of scientists, all reaching the same conclusion. Again, there’s little remaining scientific doubt about anthropogenic climate change. The question now is the best response.” (Yet the doubt that remains is still scientific. Why is that? Don’t AGW proponents have overwhelming evidence from “numerous, multiple, quite aware, consensusing” scientists and countries to throw at the few remaining skeptics?)
Throughout this rejoinder to Mike and Bookworm is a studious avoidance of providing proofs to back up the adjective-enabled assertions about AGW.
>>All green plants produce it, naturally, during the entire photosynthesis process. >>
I must have lost track…all green plants produce _what_?
>>Humans are having a significant effect on the climate.>>
Sure must have been a lot more humans than I thought during the melting of the glaciers of the Ice Age.
I’ve always wondered how come Greenland was covered with ice, as well…
Because of the amount of support for anthrogenic climate change
The amount of bribes that cause scientists to support anthropogenic climate change has certainly gone up. More money, allows more research for the scientists that buy in. That’s rather important all in all for scientists, how much cash they have on hand for research.
Charles Martel: (Some climatologists who do not agree with the theory of AGW are also “quite” aware of said historical trends. So why do they reach different conclusions?)
It’s hard to generalize as they tend to be disparate, as is usual with outliers. Most skeptics are not climatologists, but among skeptical climatologists, most have little familiarity with computer modeling of chaotic systems.
Charles Martel: (“Consensus” does not need a modifier. It either is or isn’t.)
Strong consensus is a common phrase is English, just as is weak consensus. You can read it as an emphasizer, if it offends your sensibilities.
Charles Martel: In science, consensus is not considered evidence or proof.
Rather, all conclusions are considered tentative and subject to revision. Scientists often rely on authority when requiring understanding outside their immediate field of study. An appeal to authority is a valid argument when there is a consensus in a valid field of study. The proper argument against an appeal to authority is the evidence, or ad hominem.
Charles Martel: So, there is no proof of AGW?
Strong support.
Charles Martel: I can’t be bothered to show you where it is so I’ll make you do my work for me.)
It’s not on Bubba’s website, if that’s what you mean. Some of it is proprietary and you have to get permission to use it. There are multiple counties, legal structures and entities involved.
Charles Martel: Yet the doubt that remains is still scientific. Why is that?
Because all scientific conclusions are considered tentative, especially when dealing with complex systems and limited data. That’s why scienetists are clamoring for more data.
Charles Martel: Throughout this rejoinder to Mike and Bookworm is a studious avoidance of providing proofs to back up the adjective-enabled assertions about AGW.
Sorry, science doesn’t deal in proof, but evidence. You were provided a cite to NOAA because of the topical data-point. You might also try the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has a wealth of information.
suek: I must have lost track…all green plants produce _what_?
Sorry, there was a formatting mistake. This was the original.
Mike Devx: And don’t even get me started on the idea that CO2 – carbon dioxide – can be classified a pollutant. All mammals exhale it as a part of our natural respiration process. All green plants produce it, naturally, during the entire photosynthesis process.
Animals and plants both use oxygen to produce CO2, but plants also reverse the process, and produce more oxygen and fix more carbon as they grow than they use otherwise. Animals are carbon-neutral. Plants fix carbon. This carbon may be released when they die, or become fixed, as in a peat.
Ymarsakar: The amount of bribes that cause scientists to support anthropogenic climate change has certainly gone up.
Well, there’s always the huge international conspiracy theory.
“It’s hard to generalize as they tend to be disparate, as is usual with outliers. Most skeptics are not climatologists, but among skeptical climatologists, most have little familiarity with computer modeling of chaotic systems.”
Please name three reputable skeptics who are not familiar with computer modeling. I would like to look up their work and see how it has been critiqued.
“Scientists often rely on authority when requiring understanding outside their immediate field of study. An appeal to authority is a valid argument when there is a consensus in a valid field of study.”
Yes, but the question here is whether we can trust the consensus, thus, the authority. Nothing you have written here has shown us why we should, given the rather embarrassing revelations about the East Anglia “scientists” and energy-devouring hypocrites like Al Gore.
“The proper argument against an appeal to authority is the evidence, or ad hominem.”
Sorry, ad hominem means an attack upon the person rather than his thinking.
“Because all scientific conclusions are considered tentative, especially when dealing with complex systems and limited data. That’s why scientists are clamoring for more data.”
This confuses me. Those tentative conclusions you’re talking about—are they based on the now suspect East Anglia data? If so, I can understand the clamor for more data, but is the clamor for more or for correct?
Zachriel: It’s hard to generalize as they tend to be disparate, as is usual with outliers. Most skeptics are not climatologists, but among skeptical climatologists, most have little familiarity with computer modeling of chaotic systems.
Charles Martel: Please name three reputable skeptics who are not familiar with computer modeling. I would like to look up their work and see how it has been critiqued.
We’ll retract that statement. It’s hard to reconcile being a reputable climatologist with a complete rejection of the utility of computer modeling to understanding climate. You may want to cite skeptical scientists, but they are few and gained little traction among their colleagues.
Unlike evolutionary biology or newtonian mechanics, climate change science is very complex and requires the use of advanced computer modeling to understand the details of the evidence. Importantly, the only predictive models of climate change over the last century include co2 forcing.
Charles Martel: Nothing you have written here has shown us why we should, given the rather embarrassing revelations about the East Anglia “scientists” and energy-devouring hypocrites like Al Gore.
There is nothing about the recent controversy concerning East Anglia that calls into question the underlying science. Remember, independent researchers all around the world are reaching the same conclusion.
As for Al Gore’s supposed short-comings, they are not evidence. But it is worth pointing out that any reasonable response does not include dismantling the technological infrastructure, but updating it.
Charles Martel: Sorry, ad hominem means an attack upon the person rather than his thinking.
Yes, and you’ve suggested that the entire scientific community is unduly biased.
Charles Martel: Those tentative conclusions you’re talking about—are they based on the now suspect East Anglia data?
You seem to misunderstand how it works. The data is collected by a patchwork of distinct entities all over the world. Scientists then aggregate the data to determine the causes and future trajectory of climate change. A better system for data collection and dissemination is sorely needed. This is something everyone should be able to agree upon.
Well, there’s always the huge international conspiracy theory.
Bigger than Global Man Made Warming? You got to be kidding. Besides, you like having “many” nations supporting your ideological program. You only call things you are against, conspiracies, yet ignore more convenient facts closer to home.
The data is collected by a patchwork of distinct entities all over the world. Scientists then aggregate the data to determine the causes and future trajectory of climate change. A better system for data collection and dissemination is sorely needed. This is something everyone should be able to agree upon.
Some people aren’t so hot about buying into your network of conspiracies.
Sooo…why did the Ice Age end?
What _caused_ the Ice Age??
Suek, they don’t know. There weren’t any scientists back then collecting the weather data. Weather, after all, isn’t like geology. There are no layers of rocks and fossils depicting the past. You could perhaps tell the difference between hot and cold, but not variations in temperature, how much it varied, when, where, or why.
Course, it also doesn’t make them money, so they’re a bit bored on the subject.
Zachriel: The data is collected by a patchwork of distinct entities all over the world. Scientists then aggregate the data to determine the causes and future trajectory of climate change. A better system for data collection and dissemination is sorely needed. This is something everyone should be able to agree upon.
Ymarsakar: Some people aren’t so hot about buying into your network of conspiracies.
Your comment makes no sense. The distinct entities are independent and from many different countries. The collection of more and better data never hurts in science.
suek: Sooo…why did the Ice Age end? What _caused_ the Ice Age??
The causes of Ice Ages is not completely understood. The Earth is a dynamic and evolving system. Major factors include changes in solar output, atmospheric composition, orbital variations, movement of tectonic plates, impacts and volcanism.
Ymarsakar: There are no layers of rocks and fossils depicting the past.
Of course there is evidence of the past in rocks and fossils, as well as in ice and trees.
Ymarsakar: Course, it also doesn’t make them money, so they’re a bit bored on the subject.
The field is called paleoclimatology, and it’s an active field of study.
>>The Earth is a dynamic and evolving system. Major factors include changes in solar output, atmospheric composition, orbital variations, movement of tectonic plates, impacts and volcanism.>>
Well _then_ of course. But today, humans are much more influential in affecting climate, right?
suek: But today, humans are much more influential in affecting climate, right?
As we are aware of these other factors, and as they haven’t changed significantly over the last couple of centuries, humans are currently have a disproportionate impact on the climate.
Over geological time scales, much larger changes have occurred, of course.
“Importantly, the only predictive models of climate change over the last century include co2 forcing.”
Not sure what this means. Does it mean:
Climate prediction models have been around for 100 years? If so, how did they do? Has anybody published a predictive model from, say, 1940 or 1975, that accurately showed what the climate in 2011 would be?
Or are you saying that a valid climate prediction model only works if it counts CO2 as the primary factor in global warming/climate change/climate chaos/whatever you guys are calling it today? What about other climate-affecting factors you cited in the ”dynamic and evolving system” we call earth, such as tectonics, solar activity, orbital tilt? Are they not allowed for or considered in predictive models?
“A better system for data collection and dissemination is sorely needed.”
Why is that? Has something happened to make some people doubt (or be embarrassed by) the worldwide community of disinterested government-subsidized scientists who have already brought massive evidence of AGW to the table? Or are you saying we need more AGW-compliant data before we can begin experimenting with terraforming and tinkering with complex systems we don’t really understand?
(At some point you really are going to have to explain to us the ethical and procedural lapses at East Anglia, which despite your assertions that it is one cog in the vast machinery of AGW analysis is really more like the movement’s Vatican.)
“As we are aware of these other factors, and as they haven’t changed significantly over the last couple of centuries, humans are currently have a disproportionate impact on the climate.”
Please give us an example of this disproportionality you keep talking about.
Charles Martel: Or are you saying that a valid climate prediction model only works if it counts CO2 as the primary factor in global warming/climate change/climate chaos/whatever you guys are calling it today?
CO2 is certainly not the only factor, but there are no valid models that don’t include CO2 forcing.
Charles Martel: What about other climate-affecting factors you cited in the ”dynamic and evolving system” we call earth, such as tectonics, solar activity, orbital tilt? Are they not allowed for or considered in predictive models?
There’s a related field called paleoclimatology that informs climatology. But tectonics and orbital tilt, which work only on very long time scales, do not explain the current rapid warming of the globe.
Zachriel: A better system for data collection and dissemination is sorely needed.
Charles Martel: Why is that? Has something happened to make some people doubt (or be embarrassed by) the worldwide community of disinterested government-subsidized scientists who have already brought massive evidence of AGW to the table? Or are you saying we need more AGW-compliant data before we can begin experimenting with terraforming and tinkering with complex systems we don’t really understand?
Scientists always want more and better data. Climate, like all such dynamical systems, is very sensitive to initial conditions. Though anthropogenic climate change is no longer in reasonable doubt, the question now becomes one of refining possible trajectories so that policy makers can find the best balance of responses. There are no serious suggestions for terraforming.
Charles Martel: At some point you really are going to have to explain to us the ethical and procedural lapses at East Anglia, which despite your assertions that it is one cog in the vast machinery of AGW analysis is really more like the movement’s Vatican.
As far as we know, the U.S. NOAA is not Catholic. In any case, investigations concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, and nothing changed the underlying science, which is supported by the majority of independent researchers around the world.
“As we are aware of these other factors, and as they haven’t changed significantly over the last couple of centuries, humans are currently have a disproportionate impact on the climate.” Please give us an example of this disproportionality you keep talking about.
I’ll just keep asking until you answer.
Charles Martel: Please give us an example of this disproportionality you keep talking about. I’ll just keep asking until you answer.
Great! And we’ll keep answering it by pointing to record high global temperature anomalies.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
We can also point to the large increase in atmospheric carbon.
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg
Or increasing acidity in the ocean.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/images/slides/16_Ocean-Acidity.jpg
Zach, I’m interested: Why do you keep using the magisterial “we?” Are you conjoined twins? The Trinity? A spokesman for scientists who believe in AGW?
And since you write here with an air of authority, could you help me through the NOAA and NASA data—in lay terms, of course—so that I can see the correlation/causation that you keep talking about?
Also, down to a foundational question:
Why should we do anything about man’s miniscule contribution to atmospheric CO2 other than adjust to it? By what measure (or right) do AGW proponents like you have to urge radical ameliorative measures when the simplest and most effective means of counrering global warming/climate change/the sky is falling is to roll with the punch?
Zachriel, I must admit that I am in awe of your discourses. Please help me to understand some of these niggling questions that I have had regarding climate change issues:
First, for context, what type of scientist are you: a geologist, meteorologist, physicist, chemist?
What are all the world’s greenhouse gases and is CO2 the most important one, or are there others?
Are temperatures colder or warmer in cities and…why?
What happens when the world gets warmer – does CO2 level off, keep increasing or decreasing and why?
How do CO2 levels in the atmosphere affect plant life?
When CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, what happens to it: does it just sit there and keep collecting?
What about the sun – how does the sun affect climate change or does it just affect the weather or not have any effect at all?
I look forward to learning more from you.
Charles, the royal “We” is the proper way to speak in the presence of peasants, from royalty.
By what measure (or right) do AGW proponents like you have to urge radical ameliorative measures when the simplest and most effective means of counrering global warming/climate change/the sky is falling is to roll with the punch?
Didn’t scientists that discovered natural laws like gravitation, also make excellent engineers to for particle accelerators and rockets defying planetary gravity? That is the point of it all, after all, saying that science has the solution. If science has the solution, it means scientists can not only discover the theory but also create the application like engineers can.
It’s a new techno class. You could call it a technocracy.
Charles Martel: could you help me through the NOAA and NASA data—in lay terms, of course—so that I can see the correlation/causation that you keep talking about?
Here is NASA’s handy resource.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Charles Martel: Why should we do anything about man’s miniscule contribution to atmospheric CO2 other than adjust to it?
Maybe you missed the NASA graphic concerning the significant human contribution to atmospheric CO2.
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg
As for why, it’s because climate change may result in disruptions in crop production, spread of disease, extinction, deforestation, migration and political instability.
Charles Martel: By what measure (or right) do AGW proponents like you have to urge radical ameliorative measures when the simplest and most effective means of counrering global warming/climate change/the sky is falling is to roll with the punch?
We haven’t advocated any”radical ameliorative measures”, The trick is to make the needed changes while maintaining economic growth, especially for the developing world. A number of solutions are quite feasible, and often have other benefits. For instance, reducing dependence on foreign oil would have national security benefits for the U.S.
In any case, you are making a claim that the best response is to not respond, but making that claim requires understanding the underlying problem and possible trajectories depending on how humans react in order to compare cost and benefit. That just doesn’t seem like something you’ve considered thoughtfully.
Danny Lemieux: First, for context, what type of scientist are you: a geologist, meteorologist, physicist, chemist?
We make no claim to any expertise. Your questions don’t really seem to be posed with the intention of having a discussion. We won’t play twenty questions, and most of the answers are available on the cites provided above, but we will field this one.
Danny Lemieux: What are all the world’s greenhouse gases and is CO2 the most important one, or are there others?
Water vapor and methane are an important greenhouse gases. What’s important to understanding anthropogenic climate change is the absorption spectrum of each gas, and how this effects the Earth’s radiative energy budget.
Ymarsakar: If science has the solution, it means scientists can not only discover the theory but also create the application like engineers can.
What science can do is tell us the effect of each proposed policy. It’s up to citizens and their policy makers to arrive at reasonable solutions. However, it isn’t fair that one country dump its problems on other countries. There are technological solutions to the problem of anthropogenic climate change. It’s the politics that are difficult.
Zachriel, I must say that I am disappointed.
Who is “we” and why do you comment on AGW if you do not claim any expertise?
Why are you afraid to answer my questions?
With regard to water vapor and methane, how do they compare to CO2 as greenhouse gases?
Help me out here?
Danny Lemieux: why do you comment on AGW if you do not claim any expertise?
Bookworm asked a question.
bookworm: Doesn’t the information below about the lying autism/vaccination doc remind you of Green Billionaire Al Gore and his fellow wealth redistribution (into their own pocket) fellow travelers?
Zachriel: No. The vaccine scare has always been scant on evidence and never found a consensus or even broad agreement within the medical science community. On the other hand, the hypothesis of anthropomorphic climate change is widely supported within the peer community and is continuing to lead to new insights. There are still a lot of open questions, though; in particular, long term projections based on various proposed human responses.
Please notice the difference between the two positions concerns the state of expert opinion.
Danny Lemieux: Why are you afraid to answer my questions?
You were pointed to reliable cites for the answers to your basic questions.
Danny Lemieux: With regard to water vapor and methane, how do they compare to CO2 as greenhouse gases?
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This information is also available at the cites provided.
Ah, thank you Zachriel.
I look forward to an informed debate with you. However, I should point out that I am a scientist (biochemist), so I do ask for a specificity of detail and clear, cogent thinking. I am sure that you are up to it. I certainly hope that I am not communicating with someone who simply regurgitates information without understanding it. I know you can do better than that.
Yes, you are right: water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s environment. Unfortunately for climate models, it absolutely dwarfs CO2 in concentration. Here’s an example…note that its saturation (the concentration at which fog or mist forms or it begins to rain) is measured in 2% to 4% ranges, for most temperate conditions. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.04% mas o menos.
Now, it is true that CO2 has been measured to increase greatly over time, as evidenced by the most cited (or “sited”, as I believe you were trying to say) source, the Mauna Loa measurement site in Hawaii [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dewpoint.jpg. However, Mauna Loa also sits right next to a very active volcano, which spews...CO2. Oooops! Rather unfortunately, that. The contribution of man-made CO2 is wildly estimated to be about...4.0% (worst case). So, total mankind-contributed CO2 comes out to about [0.04% x 0.04 = 0.0016%], or pretty insignificant overall. Now, one very inconvenient truth is that nobody has any idea how the major greenhouse gas, water, affects climate. Scientists are only beginning to understand how cosmic ration affects cloud formation, which has a bigger effect on climate than CO2 or any of the other cited (not “sited”) factors. None of the climate models can account for moisture, methane or cloud formation because they don’t understand it. In fact, none of the climate models developed can even project past climate changes. How’s that for accountability to reality?
Here is some background on total greenhouse gases for your consideration: [http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html].
Also, you are mistaken about CO2 and how it is disposed: CO2 is expelled by animal life (mostly insect life). The warmer the earth gets, the greater the “life” zones and the more insect, microbial and other life activities expel CO2. Rising CO2 is a symptom, not a cause, of global warming. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by so-called carbon cycles: one is plant life (including phytoplankton), which consumes atmospheric and oceanic CO2 and converts it to organic matter. Another one is plain dirt (e.g. bentonite), which binds it chemically and physically. And, another one is coral and shellfish, which remove it from water and convert it to calcium carbonate (limestone). All the limestone formations that you see on earth, including here in the Midwest, represents CO2 that has been scrubbed from atmospheres long ago. There’s an awful lot of limestone around on the earth, don’t you think? Gaia has it all figured out.
Finally, even assuming that there was a “scientific consensus” on so-called man-made global warming, I should point out that another term for “scientific consensus” is “orthodoxy”. The learned scientists that disagreed with Galileo and Copernicus on the geocentric universe also represented “consensus”. They were wrong.
Ah well, at least you are in good historical company. I do maintain that the so-called AGW consensus is largely a media-supported fabrication. For example, if you go to this site (not “cite”), you will be able to peruse the names of 31,000 scientists that happen to disagree with this “consensus” (in Gaia parlance, this is a list of heretics): http://www.oism.org/pproject/. And, to answer your question, “yes”: my name is on there as a credentialed scientist. Finally, science does not move forward by consensus – a true scientist knows that it takes only one inconvenient fact to destroy a hypothesis forever. Therefore, true scientists recognize that it is the lone researcher, not panels of research fund-grubbing academics, that discovers the inconvenient truths that movers scientific knowledge forward.
So much for “consensus”.
In the interest of intellectual inquiry, you might want to consider another principle dear to scientific research called “Occam’s Razor”. Basically, this says “start with the the simplest explanation as it is likely to be the correct one”. The most obvious explanation for climate activity is the interaction of the earth with the sun, don’t you think (think “summer” versus “winter”)? Unlike the man-made climate change models, there is an almost perfect correlation with solar activity and global climate patterns. If you are really interested, you can learn more about this from a very intelligent and informed British scientist by the name of Piers Corbyn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn. Unlike the man-made climate change orthodoxy, Piers Corbyn has an almost perfect record at prediction the world’s climate these past few years, based on his studies of solar cycles and ocean currents. Like I said, it only takes one…..
Anyway, I’m having fun with this. You? I very much look forward to your studied responses to my challenges as we put our grey matter together on this very complex and fascinating subject. Ball is in your court, now!
Yours faithfully,
Danny Lemieux
Science can tell us what sociology, politics, and philosophy will come about from human policies? Amazing.
I have been toying with the idea, Zach, that you are a Turing machine following a script. Your answers are relentlessly stylized, almost programmatic, and never appeal to your own learning or thought, only to authorities whose bona fides have been established (in your mind) by repeated assurances that “many” and “numerous” scientists from “many” and “different” countries all agree on CO2 as the human-generated cause of GW.
But that’s just me, a crotchety old fart who thinks that people who refer to themselves as “we” probably have more problems than just an inability to do anything other than endlessly echo talking points they’ve picked up off of other people’s websites.
One of those problems is how you are going to answer Danny’s response above. I’m going to pop some corn, sit back and take bets on what rhetorical devices you will use to avoid directly answering him (“Let’s see, is there yet another NOAA, or NASA or UN site I can direct him to rather than argue the science myself?”)
Btw, what does being “fair” have to do with science? Science, does not care about what is or is not fair. Only what is or is not repeatable in experiments.
only to authorities whose bona fides have been established
What, didn’t you learn back when the Islamic hordes got hammered by Charles Martel, that one must Obey the Authority of God?
Finally, science does not move forward by consensus – a true scientist knows that it takes only one inconvenient fact to destroy a hypothesis forever.
It was the consensus that Newton’s Law of Gravitation was supreme in determining the orbits of the heavens.
Until Einstein. So who was the “consensus”, Newton or Einstein?
Darn. You guys have left me in the dust. I was still working on “How many humans does it take to equal a volcano eruption”, and “How many buffalo were in the untamed west, and how many humans would it take to equal on buffalo (x how many buffalo, etc)…
suek, I can’t answer your first question, but I can answer something very much like it:
Q. How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: “Screw” is sexist term.
Ymar, when I was whuppin’ Muslim ass back in Tours, I knew even then that God does not need consensus or government stipend.
Not any more Charles – at least in California, you’re going to have to use GU24 based fluorescent lights on any new fixtures…
Just push and twist. No doubt there’s going to be some sexual connotation to that one as well.
Males…!!!!!!
Talk about one track minds….!
Danny, you have more patience than I.
CM, that’s cause while government can print infinite money, God can print infinite universes.
Talk about one track minds….!
It’s a survival feature. If males had two tracks minds, and they were cutting firewood, they would see some hot girl run by naked and then on the next axe strike the guy would be short a shin and some jewels.
Danny Lemieux: water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s environment. Unfortunately for climate models, it absolutely dwarfs CO2 in concentration.
You seem to be arguing that climatologists don’t know that. As a physicist, you should know that radiation depends on absorption at various spectra. For most of its spectrum, water vapor is saturated. Even though CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, it contributes 20% of the greenhouse effect.
Danny Lemieux: However, Mauna Loa also sits right next to a very active volcano, which spews…CO2.
Air is collected from all over the world, at different altitudes for analysis. Do you really think scientists don’t ever check their local CO2 levels? Or that they don’t know about volcanos? Seriously? You don’t seem to understand scientists very well.
Danny Lemieux: The contribution of man-made CO2 is wildly estimated to be about…4.0% (worst case). So, total mankind-contributed CO2 comes out to about [0.04% x 0.04 = 0.0016%], or pretty insignificant overall.
Humans emit ~7 gigatons of carbon each year. The atmosphere contains about 750 gigaton. Some of that is soaked up by the ocean acidifying it. The rest has resulted in increased atmospheric CO2. If you are referring to the carbon cycle, keep in mind that it is the difference, not the absolute value, so even though the carbon cycle dwarfs the human contribution, the human contribution is excess and much of it accumulates in the atmosphere.
Danny Lemieux: I do maintain that the so-called AGW consensus is largely a media-supported fabrication.
There is, in fact, a strong consensus in the climatology community, and it includes scientists from all over the world.
Danny Lemieux: However, I should point out that I am a scientist (biochemist),
If you really think you have an argument, you should publish in the relevant journals. Don’t forget to point out that climatologists don’t know that there is more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere.
Charles Martel: Your answers are relentlessly stylized, almost programmatic, and never appeal to your own learning or thought, only to authorities whose bona fides have been established (in your mind) by repeated assurances that “many” and “numerous” scientists from “many” and “different” countries all agree on CO2 as the human-generated cause of GW.
Already wrote this twice.
bookworm: Doesn’t the information below about the lying autism/vaccination doc remind you of Green Billionaire Al Gore and his fellow wealth redistribution (into their own pocket) fellow travelers?
Zachriel: No.
Because there was never a consensus on vaccines, and most scientists could not replicate the result. On the other hand, there is a consensus within the climatology community, with the support becoming stronger, not weaker, as new data comes on line.
Ymarsakar: Finally, science does not move forward by consensus – a true scientist knows that it takes only one inconvenient fact to destroy a hypothesis forever.
That is correct.
Well, We see that Zach Turing carefully sidestepped Danny’s reference to Piers Corbyn. No surprise there.
We also note that Zach refers to a human contribution of 7 gigatons of carbon per year to the atmosphere. We have no idea—and neither does he—what orifice AGW scientists pulled that figure out of. How the hell would they know? If their temperature monitoring systems are (increasingly) suspect, how are their carbon emission monitoring systems any better?
Now, on to a Zach money quote with Our emphases added:
“Because there was never a consensus on vaccines, and most scientists could not replicate the result. On the other hand, there is a consensus within the climatology community, with the support becoming stronger, not weaker, as new data comes on line.”
(So, some scientists could replicate the vaccine results? Very interesting.) Could you direct Us to the studies that have replicated the “hockey stick” effect? Also, could you direct Us to the data that show the case for global warming/climate change/whatever becoming stronger? Does that statement come from the same peer-reviewed sources as the 7-gigaton figure?
Anyway, We turn the discussion back to Danny, who, by the way Zach, is not a physicist as you referred to him above, but is a chemist. Also, We know that even as you challenge Danny to publish his objections to AGW in journals, that you yourself will offer to publish your papers. In fact, could you do Us a favor and link Us to your dissertations on AGW, as well as your CV?
Thanks!
Darn it, Zachriel, I thought that we were going to discuss this on the basis of exchanged facts and logical thinking instead of regurgitative obfuscation.
Now, the data from Mauna Loa is that which is most referenced in the AGW community. Show us where the other data is (specifically). You might want to reference CO2 concentrations in ice core samples, as well, which provide records of past warming and cooling periods. Be specific! Provide direct references. And don’t throw around big numbers such as “gigatons of carbon” without proper frames of reference (such as the gigatons of all gases or gigatons of water molecules in the ocean). Say what you will, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% – that’s all that is relevant.
Also, you might want to critically examine data before accepting it at face value. For example, data on “ocean acidification” purports to compare data today to the mid-1700s. I have news for you…nobody was acurately measuring ocean acidification back in the mid-1700s and it is doubtful that they are measuring it accurately today. One of the factors the global warming disciples seem to be missing is the effect of underwater volcanoes, for example…which have been linked to sporadic warming and acidification in specific areas. http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5589. Of course, MSNBC “scientists” claim that underwater volcanoes would have no effect on arctic ice. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25419241/ns/technology_and_science-science/
This is akin to global warminists claiming that the sun has no effect on climate change http://www.fakeclimate.com/arquivos/Internacional/HenrikSvensmark/svensmark_96_variations%20of.pdf, leaving out water as a relevant greenhouse gas from climate models altogether (because the math was too hard) http://www.fakeclimate.com/arquivos/Internacional/HenrikSvensmark/svensmark_96_variations%20of.pdf or claiming that three sequential years of record cold winters are evidence of global warming.
At some point, Zachriel, you really have to start using common sense instead of regurgitating catch phrases.
And please don’t reference data from NASA and NOAA…they draw from data that was banked at the East Anglia Center which has amply been documented to have been deliberately corrupted. Ditto for NASA http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/6712-senators-question-flawed-nasa-climate-data and the New Zealand government http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/new-zealand-climate-scientists-admit-to-faking-temperatures-the-actual-temps-show-little-warming-ove.html, or referencing the deliberate sabotage and falsification of global temperature sensor data by placing the sensors in heat islands and near equipment exhausts:
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/nasa-climate-scientists-are-blindo-morons-and-so-are-you-if-you-think-their-data-shows-global-warming/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
not to mention the IPCC Report, which is a disgrace of misinformation and deliberate data distortion. Possibly the worst case of malfeasance was for the IPCC to include the naming of scientists as sponsors thereof who had publicly dissociated themselves from the report.
As I mentioned and as you agreed, it takes only one piece of data to completely destroy a hypothesis or theory. There are more than enough data points to destroy the man-made global warming theory. To your point, I don’t need to write and publish articles on the subject (although I do on this site …not “cite”…and others) because others far closer to the issue are doing bang-up jobs of it already.
However, that to which I object the most is the way the AGW community has corrupted the integrity of the scientific community as a whole, and that is where AGW and falsification of child immunization data intersect: they are both symptoms of raw greed and self-interest corrupting the scientific process. For the record, by the way, I don’t earn a dime for my views on these matters. I have no self interest in the issue other than the integrity of the scientific community in which I operate. The people responsible for these corruptions, however, must answer for them. Their credibility is shot and with it, their theories and hypotheses.
Zachriah, if you want to argue this credibly, then go ahead and do a yeoman’s job of restoring the reputation of those that promoted this theory. I suspect you would have better luck cleaning out the Augean stables. As that link to the Portland Project indicates, they hardly constitute a consensus and their work has been exposed as fraudulent.
But, my friend, I look forward with anticipation to your riposte. Prove not only the validity of your AGW ideas but the integrity of its now-discredited proponents…but, please, with more than a data dump. Frankly, people worldwide have already caught on to this scam. Tracing a line from Copenhagen to Cancun, it is clear to see that AGW is dying. No hockey stick graphs there.
These types of ideas crumble with their proponents jump the shark in their defenses thereof. We are already past that point where the AGW defenders make themselves more ridiculous with each redesigned template. They are already discredited.
AGW will sit on the refuse pile of historical and epic humanistic frauds such as Lysenko genetics, the Malthusian-Ehrlich “population bomb”, acid rain, 1970s Ice Age, eugenics and the rest…until the next one rears its head. I suspect that you are desperately fanning the ever-dimming embers of the Gaia dream before they finally extinguish themselves into a sad grey dust to be swirled away and scattered by the winds of reality.
For your tenacity and the strength of your faith, though, I salute you.
Now, on to a Zach money quote with Our emphases added:
“Because there was never a consensus on vaccines, and most scientists could not replicate the result. On the other hand, there is a consensus within the climatology community, with the support becoming stronger, not weaker, as new data comes on line.”
(So, some scientists could replicate the vaccine results? Very interesting.) Could you direct Us to the studies that have replicated the “hockey stick” effect? Also, could you direct Us to the data that show the case for global warming/climate change/whatever becoming stronger?
Bada-Boom! The perfect coda, Charles M.
The fundamental problem with AGW theory is that nothing has been tested ergo nothing has been replicated, including past climate behavior on the basis of current climate models.
Oh my, lookee here: I just happend on this site (not cite) and found a giganto altar to Gaia. Must have been built by a global warminist way back then whenever…..(h/t SmallDeadAnimals.com)…Cool!
http://www.dump.com/2010/12/17/lighthouse-becomes-icehouse-video/
“I suspect that you are desperately fanning the ever-dimming embers of the Gaia dream before they finally extinguish themselves into a sad grey dust to be swirled away and scattered by the winds of reality.”
Danny, there are times when I, a pseudo-Frenchman, look at you, a true Frenchman, and wipe my half-Irish eyes in gratitude that you are, whether you know it or not, gifted with the Gaelic gift for English.
Charles Martel: We also note that Zach refers to a human contribution of 7 gigatons of carbon per year to the atmosphere. We have no idea—and neither does he—what orifice AGW scientists pulled that figure out of.
Gee whiz, Charles. Humans burning fossil fuels is not a mystery. This is typical handwaving.
Danny Lemieux: Darn it, Zachriel, I thought that we were going to discuss this on the basis of exchanged facts and logical thinking instead of regurgitative obfuscation.
No, as mentioned previously, you have made clear you aren’t interested in a discussion. Rather, you want to divert attention through handwaving, ignoring responses, ad hominem attacks, and simple, unacknowledged errors, such as confusing gross emissions with net emissions as you did above. Here’s a typical example.
Danny Lemieux: I have news for you…nobody was acurately measuring ocean acidification back in the mid-1700s and it is doubtful that they are measuring it accurately today.
You’re seriously claiming that scientists can’t accurately measure pH.
Danny Lemieux: Now, the data from Mauna Loa is that which is most referenced in the AGW community. Show us where the other data is (specifically).
This is why it’s clear you aren’t interested in a discussion. You have suggested that climate scientists are not aware of water vapor, volcanoes, and haven’t checked their measurements of CO2 concentrations at different places and under different conditions.
You say you are a scientist. You can measure the CO2 content of the atmosphere yourself. If you find a significant discrepancy, you can alert the scientific community. Don’t you understand how this science stuff works?
Danny Lemieux: Could you direct Us to the studies that have replicated the “hockey stick” effect?
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
National Research Council, National Academies Press 2006.
Danny Lemieux: For example, if you go to this site (not “cite”), you will be able to peruse the names of 31,000 scientists that happen to disagree with this “consensus” (in Gaia parlance, this is a list of heretics): http://www.oism.org/pproject/.
Oh my. That’s a lot of names. But no affiliations, university, qualifications, or anything. The form only requires some sort of BS. (Googling a few names found a nutritionist, a mathematician, and a lot of names whose only claim to fame is having signed the petition.) On the other hand, here’s a cite to a relevant authority.
Joint science academies’ statement: Climate change is real
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Aha, Zachriel,
I begin to understand the source(s) of your confusion, as indicated below:
Danny Lemieux: I have news for you…nobody was acurately measuring ocean acidification back in the mid-1700s and it is doubtful that they are measuring it accurately today.
You’re seriously claiming that scientists can’t accurately measure pH.
Danny Lemieux: Now, the data from Mauna Loa is that which is most referenced in the AGW community. Show us where the other data is (specifically).
This is why it’s clear you aren’t interested in a discussion. You have suggested that climate scientists are not aware of water vapor, volcanoes, and haven’t checked their measurements of CO2 concentrations at different places and under different conditions.
You say you are a scientist. You can measure the CO2 content of the atmosphere yourself. If you find a significant discrepancy, you can alert the scientific community. Don’t you understand how this science stuff works?
So, in your mind, measuring acidity requires simply sticking a pH stick in the ocean. The problem with this approach is a) the accuracy of the pH stick and the variations inherent to any instrument (called “within-sample variation); b) the natural variation in water pH as a function of location and time; c) the statistical analysis itself, which is necessarily subject to huge error (measured as probabilty of a null hypothesis or coefficient of variation). The problem is that the error factors are so huge that the mean or median results are nonsensical. But you are correct to have pointed this, because a fundamental flaw in AGW “science” has been using huge statistical error spreads to derive conclusions (as in, if there is a 0.1% chance of the world growing hot from AGW, then we must react to that possibility, never mind that the opposite end of the error spread indicates that there is a 0.1% chance that we will all end up as woolly mammoths).
No, as mentioned previously, you have made clear you aren’t interested in a discussion. Rather, you want to divert attention through hand waving, ignoring responses, ad hominem attacks, and simple, unacknowledged errors, such as confusing gross emissions with net emissions as you did above.
BTW – please point out one ad hominem attack that I have made on you in my discourses with you? By contrast, I will point out your unwarranted attack on the Portland Project signers, as you did not investigate a single one of those individuals before essentially accusing them of being frauds. You could try Googling them (I will help you: start with “Richard Lindzen MIT”). Attacking the substance and methodology of you arguments does not constitute an ad hominem attack, as I have provided examples of each point to which you are free to respond).
There is no “unacknowledged errors”, such as confusing “gross emissions” with “net emissions”. Please point out specifically the issue with which you disagree. Support it with data, not vague references. Your responses to Charles M’s points are fatuous handwaving, however, so please be more specific. You also have not addressed the issues of “carbon cycles”, which I outlined in detail for you. I also pointed out the errors in your arguments, as, for example, when you told MikeD that plants exhale CO2 during the photosynthesis process:
All green plants produce it, naturally, during the entire photosynthesis process. Animals are carbon neutral. Plants are generally carbon neutral, but can sometimes be carbon sinks.
This comment was so factually wrong, wrong, wrong and misleading. Animals capture CO2 from plants, which capture (or “scrub”) it from the air through photosynthesis.
That’s OK, though. The AGW community is full of this kind of error and obfuscation.
With regard to the claims that “climate scientists” aren’t aware of volcanoes, ocean acidification, CO2 emissions from volcanoes, etc…of course they are. The point which you so conveniently ignored is that so many “climatologists” deliberate manipulated, corrupted or simply fabricated so much of the data upon which these fantastical theories were based. They’ve been called out on it and exposed. This is why the AGW bandwagon is over, finis and finito. A good example is the National Research Council report you cite – the data was collected from the corrupted surface temperature measurement sites to which one of my links referred. It has not been corroborated by more-accurate satellite data. Scientific data cannot be better than the quality of instruments it uses to make measurements, especially when the methodology is corrupted.
A NASA report on surface versus satellite measurements (conveniently ignored by the AGW community):
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd12mar97_1/
For the record, Mann’s “Hockey Stick” effect has been thoroughly debunked. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/. However,in response to my challenge, you simply provide a general reference to a 2006 National Research Council report which large relied in part upon…Mann’s corrupted hockey stick data. For the record, summary reports such as the NRC (or NAS) consolidate data from other researchers, they don’t create or do a forensic analysis thereof. If the data is corrupt, the NRC reports are similarly corrupted. This is one reason why the fraudulence of the AGW community is so egregious.
I think that you and your team miss the point in your responses to challenges posed by myself and others on this blog: you appear to accept data as it is written without question. You are not a scientist, so I can appreciate how this can happen. The points we have been making are that the data upon which you have been relying is deeply flawed…sometimes by the limits of the measuring systems used (your pH stick example), sometimes by deliberate omission (e.g., Mann’s “hockey stick”,the Siberian tree-ring data, solar variables, water vapor variables), or the misunderstanding of how basic processes work (e.g., ice compaction in the Bering Sea; cosmic radiation effects on cloud formation) and other times by pure fabrication (e.g., surface temperature data, Amazon deforestation data, Himalayan glacier disappearance data,).
As Charles M. points out, you still have not addressed the challenges posed by scientists like Richard Lindzen (MIT) or Piers Corbyn (I gave you a link) that have offered alternate theories of climate change (based on solar activity) with far greater predictive powers than the AGW mish-mash that has been concocted to date. Bookworm called your arguments out for the inconsistencies between your claims that weather is subject to great variation which makes its prediction uncertain while climate claims extending over thousands of years are somehow “exact”. You could not respond.
So, for the next round, let’s rely upon specific examples, not vague hand-waving or unexplained links to this or that report. Let’s get into the science of it. Otherwise, your fanning of the embers suggests a desperation and we risk losing interest in an otherwise very interesting discussion.
Danny Lemieux: So, in your mind, measuring acidity requires simply sticking a pH stick in the ocean.
Strawman. This is your statement again.
Danny Lemieux: I have news for you…nobody was acurately measuring ocean acidification back in the mid-1700s and it is doubtful that they are measuring it accurately today.
You are claiming that scientists are not measuring oceanic acidity accurately today. Either that’s because it can’t be measured, or they don’t know how. The vast majority of people know this is not a reasonable position, and that scientists are more than capable of collecting such information, and that, in fact, they collect it from many areas of the globe and under varying conditions.
Danny Lemieux: please point out one ad hominem attack that I have made on you in my discourses with you?
You’ve impuned the AGW community, which includes the National Academy of Sciences, as “a disgrace of misinformation and deliberate data distortion“, “the AGW community has corrupted the integrity of the scientific community as a whole, and that is where AGW and falsification of child immunization data intersect: they are both symptoms of raw greed and self-interest corrupting the scientific process“, “AGW will sit on the refuse pile of historical and epic humanistic frauds“.
Ad hominem can be a valid response to an appeal to authority, though in this case, it requires impugning nearly every scientific institution and the majority of climate researchers as either uniformly incompetent or dishonest—a huge international conspiracy.
Danny Lemieux: By contrast, I will point out your unwarranted attack on the Portland Project signers, as you did not investigate a single one of those individuals before essentially accusing them of being frauds.
Indeed, we did not attack the signers. Rather, it was *your* claim there were 31,000 scientists who disagreed with the consensus, evidence against such a consensus. But even a cursory look reveals that only a BS is required, and not even in a field related to climate science.
Danny Lemieux: You could try Googling them (I will help you: start with “Richard Lindzen MIT”).
Lindzen is a serious researcher. He is credited with helping refine climate models. However, he has failed to convince his peers who believe that they have adequately addressed his concerns. Consensus doesn’t require unanimity.
Zachriel: All green plants produce {CO2}, naturally, during the entire photosynthesis process. Animals are carbon neutral. Plants are generally carbon neutral, but can sometimes be carbon sinks.
Danny Lemieux: This comment was so factually wrong, wrong, wrong and misleading. Animals capture CO2 from plants, which capture (or “scrub”) it from the air through photosynthesis.
Yes, they do, then release the carbon when they burn it for energy. Animals are carbon neutral. (Some carbon may become sequested when they die, but the vast majority is digested and released by other organisms.)
Danny Lemieux: The point which you so conveniently ignored is that so many “climatologists” deliberate manipulated, corrupted or simply fabricated so much of the data upon which these fantastical theories were based.
Ad hominem.
Danny Lemieux: A NASA report on surface versus satellite measurements (conveniently ignored by the AGW community):
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd12mar97_1/
A 1997 article which has been disputed by later research. Satellites don’t measure temperature directly. The interpretation of satellite data was in error.
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change, National Academy Press 2000.
Danny Lemieux: For the record, Mann’s “Hockey Stick” effect has been thoroughly debunked. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/.
Muller’s 2004 essay only disputes the statistical analysis, which is addressed by the 2006 National Research Council report.
Danny Lemieux: you appear to accept data as it is written without question.
Not at all, but do think that climatologists know about volcanos and water vapor and how to measure oceanic acidity and surface temperature with reasonable reliability.
Danny Lemieux: Let’s get into the science of it.
We’re not arguing the science. Rather, we answered bookworm’s question and drew a reasonable distinction concerning scientific consensus. None of your objections, including that the climatological community is engaged in a ”disgrace of misinformation and deliberate data distortion“, were convincing.
In Zach’s scrupulous avoidance of addressing anything that might upset his True Believer applecart, We notice that he found it hazardous to answer a simple question: How do scientists know that humans pour 7 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere annually? His sneery response to Us was, “Gee, humans burning fossil fuels is not a mystery,” thus conflating, We think, accounting with measuring.
There is no known way to accurately measure humanity’s carbon production via the burning of fossil fuels. The best Zach’s scientists can do is make estimates based on reports of fuel consumption from such honest and reliable data sources as Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Burma and other countries whose scientists can be counted on to man the front ranks in the war against global warming/climate change/climate chaos/next year it’s global cooling/Zach’s Noble Cause.
But, then, as Our friend Danny has pointed out several times above, Zach loves his appeals to authority, which We have it on good word are “multiple,” “numerous” and engage in serial “consensus.” (For example, what is “reasonable reliability” when discussing water vapor measurements? The child knows nothing about scientific equipment or processes, and is not credentialed, therefore has no basis for claiming to know what is reasonable. As We might say when We have shucked off Our handmade, carbon-neutral loafers at night, and are lingering over an exquisite Gevrey-Chambertin Cos de Beze 1971 (oooh, those unctuous hints of cherry!), watching a rollicking episode of Sarah Palin Decimates the Moose Species, “Get outta here!”
=SIGH= So, We must face bitter disappointment once again. We asked the Leftosphere to send Us some red meat and the best it could do is dispatch a humorless puppy made of veal.
Charles Martel: We notice that he found it hazardous to answer a simple question: How do scientists know that humans pour 7 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere annually?
Actually, this is what you wrote.
Charles Martel: We also note that Zach refers to a human contribution of 7 gigatons of carbon per year to the atmosphere. We have no idea—and neither does he—what orifice AGW scientists pulled that figure out of. How the hell would they know?
It’s rather obvious humans are emitting carbon into the atmosphere, and that it is something that can be determined with reasonable accuracy. Yours was a rhetorical question whose only purpose was to denigrate others. But in case you are really interested, primary sources include the burning of fossil fuel, cement production, and changes in land use.
Le Quéré et al., Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide, Nature Geoscience 2009.
You might also try this:
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/
Charles Martel: There is no known way to accurately measure humanity’s carbon production via the burning of fossil fuels.
Human consumption of fossil fuels and cement is not a mystery. Yes, they are based on reasonable estimates.
Charles Martel: {snip}
Danny, but doesn’t testing things on a global or even a sample of the global scale, require “money”?
So when scientists are paid by politicians to conduct such experiments, are they doing science or are they doing politics? What is being paid for here.
You’re rather mistaken in your usage of ad hominem, Zach.
An ad hominem is logical claim utilizing an attack on a person’s character independent of the facts of the matter, to justify the claim or to disprove the claim of others.
Thus it would only be an ad hominem attack on climatologists if the logical argument was that they fabricated data on global warming so they must have defrauded on their mortgage as well. Independent of the truth of the person’s character, if it has NOTHING to do with the matter at hand, then it is an ad hominem.
It’s very easy, not hard at all, to differentiate between the claim person A is lying because they lied in the past and Person A is lying because we have proof they lied about this matter.
One is a form of hearsay or rumour mongering. The other is a factual statement backed up by evidence, not just logic.
Climatologists either manufactured data on “climate change” or they did not. True or false. There is no room for “ad hominem” here. Where did you take your Logic 101 course, Zach?
Ymarsakar: An ad hominem is logical claim utilizing an attack on a person’s character independent of the facts of the matter, to justify the claim or to disprove the claim of others. Thus it would only be an ad hominem attack on climatologists if the logical argument was that they fabricated data on global warming so they must have defrauded on their mortgage as well. Independent of the truth of the person’s character, if it has NOTHING to do with the matter at hand, then it is an ad hominem.
An ad hominem is an attack on the person. An ad hominem is a fallacy of diversion when the attacks are irrelevant, but it is not a fallacy if, for instance, it concerns the reliability of the cited authority, such as undue bias. The case presented above is that there is an international conspiracy involving thousands of scientists.
I am buried in earning-my-living type of work and will work to untangle Zachriah’s responses later.
You do challenge us, Zachriah. Good for you!
Interesting headline on Zach’s blog site (from August 18) at http://zachriel.blogspot.com/: Teabaggers & Race-baiting
Apparently Zach, who is resents “ad hominems” against AGW proponents, and is a stickler for correct scientific terminology, thinks that using a word that describes a debased sex act is OK to apply to millions of Americans he has never met.
Charles [hammering the enemy since 732]
Apparently Zach, who is resents “ad hominems” against AGW proponents, and is a stickler for correct scientific terminology, thinks that using a word that describes a debased sex act is OK to apply to millions of Americans he has never met.
Which helps explains why in a previous thread Zachriel considered the teabagger issue “unimportant.” After all, “we” were in agreement with him. The royal we, it would appear.
When did you become so interested and full of expertise on international conspiracies, Zach? Are you an FBI agent, eh.
A non sequitor is a fallacy using diversion. Aka red herring. Ad hominems are not “diversions”. Nor is it logically sufficient to say that someone is “biased”, thus proving their statements wrong. In fact, if you use the lawyer trick of saying the testimony the jury just heard was “biased” and thus false, without giving any other evidence or reason to base your claims on, then you are using ad hominem. Rather than avoiding it.
In its simplest format, attacks on the person means that regardless of whether the claims about the person is true or not, it does not change the truth of what they claimed.
So you need to forget about your conspiracy troubles, Zach, and stick with the subject. Climate change scientists made up and fabricated data for personal ambitions and for corrupt goals. Those same scientists are the ones helping to form the political policies and “technological solutions” in “peer review” (consensus committee building) arenas that you think will solve the issue of anthropomorphic climate change.
We’re talking about those scientists, specifically. Either they did or did not. This is about climate change, not somebody else’s tax returns. You’re talking about some conspiracy where all the nations on Earth support Global Warming and Climate Change and thus support such scientists. There’s no evidence for that. It’s a fabrication. Name the scientists that are working with the Climatologists that fabricated it. Can you even name the “country” or countries involved?
Danny Lemieux: I am buried in earning-my-living type of work and will work to untangle Zachriah’s responses later.
That’s fine. We may catch you on a future thread. Good luck with your work.
Charles Martel: Apparently Zach, who is resents “ad hominems” against AGW proponents
In fact, Charles Martel, the benefit of the doubt was given that the ad hominem, if valid rather than silly, would undermine the appeal to authority.
Ymarsakar: Ad hominems are not “diversions”.
When an ad hominem is irrelevant to the credibility or knowledge of the authority, then it is a fallacy of diversion.
Ymarsakar: Nor is it logically sufficient to say that someone is “biased”, thus proving their statements wrong.
That’s correct, but it can undermine the appeal to authority.
Ymarsakar: In fact, if you use the lawyer trick of saying the testimony the jury just heard was “biased” and thus false, without giving any other evidence or reason to base your claims on, then you are using ad hominem.
But if you show that the person giving medical testimony has had his medical license revoked, then it would be relevant to judging how much weight to give his expert opinion.
Ymarsakar: So you need to forget about your conspiracy troubles, Zach, and stick with the subject.
The subject was bookworm’s question concerning the distinction between the vaccine question and climate change. The distinction, once again, is that the former was not accepted by the medical science community, while the latter represents the strong consensus of the climate science community, including national science academies the world over.
Ymarsakar: You’re talking about some conspiracy where all the nations on Earth support Global Warming and Climate Change and thus support such scientists. There’s no evidence for that.
That’s right. There is no evidence of an international conspiracy in climate science “of historical and epic humanistic fraud“. So, this would be a relevant and valid citation:
Joint science academies’ statement: Climate change is real.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Speaking of global warming, I’d like to start a thread that predicts the next euphemism the AGW fanatics will use to try to stanch the public’s rapidly diminishing belief in/attention to the hysteria surrounding it.
We’ve seen AGW morph into “climate change,” which will probably careen toward God-knows-what euphemism as people become more and more disgusted by the True Believers. I hope SADIE, suek, jj, Mike, Danny and usual gang will want to contribute.
Here goes:
“Weatherpalooza”
“Hellzapoppin”
“Geehotism” (with apologies to Islam)
“Listen to the Warm” (with apologies to Rod McKuen)
“Because WE Say So-ism” (with apologies to Zachriel)
“Hotterthanaskank” (apologies to Lindsey Lohan)
“Joosarewreckingtheearthery” (with yet more apologies to Islam)
I like Hellzapoppin. It has a good country feel that should appeal to the naysayers in the flyover states.
There is no evidence of an international conspiracy in climate science “of historical and epic humanistic fraud“.
If there’s no evidence of an international conspiracy, why do you say they “all agree”?
They don’t all agree. Otherwise, they would be part of the same group think and their personal distinctions and origins would cease to matter.
Ymarsakar: If there’s no evidence of an international conspiracy, why do you say they “all agree”?
The phrase “all agree” previously appears four times on this thread, none of them by Zachriel. In any case, people can agree without conspiring, such as through independent analysis of the same phenomena.
So…”consensus” _doesn’t_ = “all agree”?
And what do these independent analyzers have to say on the matter of their fellow colleagues fabricated data and corrupt practices? Do they approve? Do they treat them as persona non grata? Do they act like it is no big deal?
Though anthropogenic climate change is no longer in reasonable doubt
So you’re saying scientists don’t agree that anthropomorphic climate change is no longer in reasonable doubt, is that it. If they all don’t agree… why then do you claim climate change of that sort is not open to reasonable doubt?
You can’t use “Weatherpalooza” because everyone agrees – that is to say, there is clearly a consensus – that climate does not = weather.
Climatepalooza just doesn’t have the same sound either.
And then there’s always the Mayan foretelling that 2012 will be the end of the world, so it doesn’t really matter anyway. Of course, supposedly the other possibility is that the big stone on which the Mayan predictions were made just ran out of space when they came to 2012… Then we’re back to worrying again.
Of course, we still haven’t established that there’s a possibility that there’s actually something we can do to change anything. Other than move to a more pleasant climate.
And then if one of the volcanoes spews again…wouldn’t that set us back? How many years of CO2 and MH4 do we have to “save” to make sure we have enough credit for one volcanoe eruption??
suek: So…”consensus” _doesn’t_ = “all agree”?
consensus, general agreement.
scientific consensus, Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
Ymarsakar: And what do these independent analyzers have to say on the matter of their fellow colleagues fabricated data and corrupt practices?
If you are referring to the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, mutiple investigations have concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, and nothing changed the underlying science.
Ymarsakar: If they all don’t agree… why then do you claim climate change of that sort is not open to reasonable doubt?
There are always contrarians — and reasonable criticism has an important role to play —, but as better data and methods have become available, the overall concensus concerning climate change has only been strengthened.
Ymarsakar, you must understand that assertion replaces proof in this never-ending talking to the hand. There were “multiple investigations” of the East Anglia fraud, and all of them determined that there was not a single problem with the falsified data that the “scientists” there were churning out to the credulous.
How do we know this? Because Z keeps telling us so. Never mind that he does not link to (or name) any of the “multiple investigations,” or tell us who conducted them, or what was the response by skeptics to the foxes’ conclusions after they cleaned the hen house.
All that you need to know is that it has been taken care of by the proper authorities (and Z is their prophet).
Sleep, Ymar, sleep. Believe. Believe.
> “Science doesn’t deal in ‘proof’, but in evidence. (So, there is no proof of AGW? And, apparently, after the East Anglia fiasco, no evidence either.)
You couldn’t be more wrong. The scientific method begins with “evidence”, which is the data. From the input data, a hypothesis is formed. The hypothesis *absolutely* then requires proof.
Proof is the cornerstone itself of the scientific method. A hypothesis is utterly worthless without the proof. The proof advances it to a theory. Actually, even that statement is not strong enough. Repeated *duplication* of results, by others engaged in the science, forms the proof that advances a hypothesis to a theory.
To claim that science doesn’t deal in proof is a complete outrage.
And I stand by my assertions that this is a political and religious movement. Many scientists with perfectly acceptable credentials are not on board your wagon. They refute the AGW conclusions. Your “consensus” is nothing more than like-minded AGW believers circling their wagons and freezing out the skeptics. Freezing them out of the “peer review groups”, freezing them out of the funding, calling them names and labeling them deniers. Denying them funding especially sends a chilling signal to all of those up-and-coming students in the universities that they’d better toe the political and religious line in their experiments, studies and theses.
You can’t label CO2 a pollutant. Perhaps you force it there solely out of expediency to your regulatory processes, but you’d better admit, “Now, we all know it’s not a pollutant, but because CO2 is a part of the models, we can at least get a handle on it in our regulations this way”. But none of these people, to my knowledge, will even make that statement.
And I’ve seen serious data indicating that rises in atmospheric retention of CO2 follow warming, not *cause* it. And I’ve seen claims (but not references to source data, unfortunately) that the amount of CO2 generated by our civilization processes is miniscule compared to that produced in nature.
Your dismissal of the loss of the East Anglia source data is troubling. Those who would engage in repeating the experiments of those “researchers” are not supposed to have to reassemble the source data. As you said, better methodology in source collection is needed. (And boy, you can say that again!) By destroying their source data, given current conditions, they guaranteed that no one CAN assemble that source data. No one knows what they used! It’s my understanding that they wouldn’t release their transformation algorithms either by which their “transformed data” was produced. Finally, they wouldn’t release their models either. You can’t have a scientific method without public dissemination of these things. No one can repeat the process without it. And without such repetition, you don’t have proof; you don’t have the scientific method. You have to take what they’re claiming on FAITH.
Thank God for the ClimateGate leaks.
Charles Martel: Ymarsakar, you must understand that assertion replaces proof in this never-ending talking to the hand.
That’s funny, considering the unsubstantiated accusations.
Charles Martel: There were “multiple investigations” of the East Anglia fraud, and all of them determined that there was not a single problem with the falsified data that the “scientists” there were churning out to the credulous.
“The report was unequivocal in its backing of the scientists in terms of research integrity, though it did criticize their openness. ‘Their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,’ it said.” http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/east-anglia-climate-scientists-l.html
By the way, East Anglia aggregated the data. The data is collected by a large number of independent entities in many different countries. You can aggregate the data yourself, or if you prefer, you can set up your own data-collection centers, then compare your data to what others have collected. That’s how science is done.
> There is no evidence of an international conspiracy in climate science “of historical and epic humanistic fraud“.
Sure there is. What is lacking is enough proof to constitute a verdict of Guilty. The ClimateGate leaks indicate plenty of evidence in support of what’s popularly become known as their efforts to “Hide The Decline”. It’s not conclusive evidence of guilt of intentional fraud, but it *is* evidence. It’s just not conclusive enough to declare guilt. So, yes, the jury is still out as to whether it was an honest mistake, or was deliberate fraud.
Given the amount of money and funding at stake, and my skepticism, you can tell where I land.
My point is simply that AGW science remains in its infancy. There is hardly conclusive proof of the type that would justify a radical, outstanding reworking of national economies to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars, along with a disastrous decline in living standards that would result. The proof is not in, and the debate is not over.
Mike Devx: There is hardly conclusive proof of the type that would justify a radical, outstanding reworking of national economies to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars, along with a disastrous decline in living standards that would result. The proof is not in, and the debate is not over.
But degradation of the environment will cause exactly what you’re trying to avoid. Any reasonable solution has to balance economic with environmental concerns. Indeed, many proposed solutions just make sense, such as using less petrol to power motor vehicles, reducing dependence on obsolete, polluting coal-fired plants, updated power grids to handle new sources of generation, and more efficient use of energy. The U.S. could be a leading exporter of the new technology.
Hurrah! Z supports nuclear power plants, with their incredibly low carbon footprints and enviable safety records. At last, the hand departs from orthodoxy!
PS, Mike: Notice the invalid syllogism:
There is evidence that there is a thing called AGW
The environment is undergoing (undescribed) degradation
Therefore not addressing AGW will continue that degradation
As better methods of gathering data on atoms and analyzing the results were found, the atomic model went from a ball to an electron shell to an electron “cloud” to neutrons and protons forming the “nucleus” of the atom, to quantum mechanics behind quarks forming the “protons” of an atom.
So that means quantum mechanics is the “consensus” at the moment like Newtonian physics was the “consensus” 100 years ago? But those “consensus”, if you hadn’t noticed, were utterly destroyed or replaced by better scientific methodologies and theories explanation natural phenomenon.
So what makes you think AGW is any different. Why is that the game ender. Why is there a consensus that says there are no more questions to be asked? Did people stop asking questions about the atom and the base nature of matter the moment they got an electron microscope. Did physicists decree that they “knew it all” like you have?
Charles Martel: Notice the invalid syllogism: There is evidence that there is a thing called AGW. The environment is undergoing (undescribed) degradation. Therefore not addressing AGW will continue that degradation.
Actually, if you would follow the cites previously provided , you would discover that there is intensive study of how climate change will affect the environment.
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/
Ymarsakar: So that means quantum mechanics is the “consensus” at the moment like Newtonian physics was the “consensus” 100 years ago? But those “consensus”, if you hadn’t noticed, were utterly destroyed or replaced by better scientific methodologies and theories explanation natural phenomenon.
Newtonian physics is still taught and used.
Ymarsakar: So what makes you think AGW is any different. Why is that the game ender. Why is there a consensus that says there are no more questions to be asked?
An important sign of a good theory is the number of new questions that are raised. Indeed, climatology is a very active science, with a plenitude of current publication. Models are being refined, and answers are being sought to important questions concerning the impact of varying human responses to climate change, possible changes to important ocean and atmospheric currents, glacier melt; in related fields, impacts on wildlife, crop yields, extinction; and in unrelated fields, such as immigration and national security.
The data is very widespread. Changes to climate are being recorded by scientists in other fields besides climatology, such as biology, oceanography and forestry. You might try the International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, Journal of Climate, or the journal Oceanography or Wildlife Management.
To get a political policy, you need more than changes in the climate data. You need a theory explaining and interpreting the data. Have you somehow mixed together data gathered in the field and human interpretations, based upon subjective biases, that data, Zach?
Newtonian physics is still taught and used.
So are older models of the atom taught. Used? I doubt quantum physicists are plugging in Newtonian equations in those particle accelerators of theirs.
So basically, climate change is based upon old data, and you think it’s usable in determining the financial and prosperity status of individuals on the world.
Not even scientists were going to bet human lives on old theories, regardless of what they could be used for. But you have the confidence to claim that you know the solutions to politics and science?
What is this belief based upon. You say you have no personal experience in the field or in the theory of climate change. So you’re willing to invest the well being of actual human beings on what… politicians and scientists?
“Actually, if you would follow the cites previously provided , you would discover that there is intensive study of how climate change will affect the environment.”
By “cites” I guess you mean either sites or citations? Also, petrol is spelled g-a-s.
Why are you calling it “climate change?” I thought you were proud to defend “global warming?”
“Will affect the environment?” I thought you already knew that it has. May we expect hockey sticks to be involved in any upcoming calculations?
Ymarsakar: To get a political policy, you need more than changes in the climate data.
That’s right. You need to know the effects of each proposed policy, short and long term, with a careful attention to balancing cost and benefit. Science can only provide the effects. It’s up to policy-makers to ultimately decide the proper balance.
Ymarsakar: Have you somehow mixed together data gathered in the field and human interpretations, based upon subjective biases, that data …
Handwaving.
Ymarsakar: So are older models of the atom taught. Used? I doubt quantum physicists are plugging in Newtonian equations in those particle accelerators of theirs.
As Newton didn’t propose an Atomic Theory of Matter, it’s doubtful.
Ymarsakar: So basically, climate change is based upon old data, and you think it’s usable in determining the financial and prosperity status of individuals on the world.
Climate change science is based on old and new data.
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record.
Ymarsakar: So you’re willing to invest the well being of actual human beings on what… politicians and scientists?
Gee whiz. This really doesn’t make any sense. Every time a doctor cuts into someone with a knife, you are trusting in applied science and all the regulatory mechanisms to deliver those services reliably.
Sure, science is fallible. But handwaving away the conclusions of science won’t change those conclusions. Only data will. And according to a strong consensus of the scientific community, the data supports anthropogenic climate change. Any reasonable person would take that to stead, fund additional research, and take reasonable measures — most of which have substantial secondary benefits anyway.
What you fail to acknowledge is that the well being of actual human beings depends on taking action to protect the environment. Just think of it this way. Again, either the U.S. can lead on this, or they will cede the technology to others.
Charles Martel: By “cites” I guess you mean either sites or citations?
Cite is short for citation. One cites an authority.
Yes. I am aware that cites is a verb. Nice to know you are practicing the old Germanic language habit of turning verbs into nouns. Thus, citation, a perfectly good word, now gives way to your neologism, a “cite.”
Speaking of creating new expressions, just when was it that ”global warming” became “climate change?”
Charles Martel: Thus, citation, a perfectly good word, now gives way to your neologism, a “cite.”
Next thing you know people will be saying quote when they mean quotation.
quote as noun, 1885
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=quote
Cite is a common, informal shortening of the noun citation. Reviewing the comments, the usage was quite clear.
Charles Martel: Speaking of creating new expressions, just when was it that ”global warming” became “climate change?”
One doesn’t replace the other, rather, they are related concepts. Global warming refers to an increase in the average global temperature. Climate change refers to changes in regional climates. Depending on context, they often refer to human-caused change.
climate change, 1983
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=climate+change
Zach, no need to be defensive. You are a doubleplusgood citer, which should console you that compared to most people here you’re not all that good a writer.
Also, thanks for reminding me that I left out “climate disruption.” Next stop, climate catastrophe!
Every time a doctor cuts into someone with a knife, you are trusting in applied science and all the regulatory mechanisms to deliver those services reliably.
Actually, it’s more like the doctor has a list of failures and successes in surgery.
New kid that never had surgery, only studied up using “theory” in the medical texts=not the same.
The question is, why are you ordering people into the climate change room for economic corrections when you yourself have no qualifications on the matter?
Ymarsakar: The question is, why are you ordering people into the climate change room for economic corrections when you yourself have no qualifications on the matter?
We have consistently referred to the strong consensus of the scientific community.
Joint science academies’ statement: Climate change is real.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
This thread has probably run its course.
Zachriel, #101
> We have consistently referred to the strong consensus of the scientific community.
There’s that royal WE again! As far as I know, only you, Zachriel, have referred to that “strong consensus” as a positive. If others have typed that phrase above, it is only in refutation of your argument.
> This thread has probably run its course.
Translation: “I’m getting tired of this. You won’t see me much in this thread anymore, if at all.”
Saying “I’m getting tired of this” would have been an honest comment. Saying “This thread has probably run its course” is more sideways-slippery rhetoric that implicitly claims more consensus where there isn’t any. I don’t think anyone else here is claiming that the entire thread has “probably run its course”.
Actually, I’d like to commend Zachriel. He (or she?) has been doing a fine job presenting his viewpoint. He’s more informed than most AGW proponents. He’s regularly civil. And remember, it IS awfully tough to hang in there in a blog comment section when no one else has joined your argument’s side; you can start to feel ganged-up-on. I may nitpick on the royal “we” stuff and implicit claims of consensus (this thread has run its course) rather than simpler statements of opinion (I’m getting tired of this). But I’m just nitpicking because I’m used to it in arguments and its an irritant to me. (Ozzie used to do that a lot, too.) Zachriel’s been great, in my opinion. I’ll read his comments with serious reflection anytime.
> But handwaving away the conclusions of science won’t change those conclusions. Only data will.
“Handwaving” is what AGW proponents do to arguments that AGW is only a minor contributor to global warming. Their data and hypothesis often seem more compelling to me.
Zach continues to focus solely on data rather than on the entire scientific method that results in accepted theories. I still don’t understand that. Data is merely the inputs. It’s the starting point, only. I continue to insist that any good theory must submit its models to the scientific community and the results must be independently verifiable; and the theory will then also be put to the test via other experiments whose conclusions result in PROOF. That’s the way it’s always worked, and no handwaving attempts to dismiss the scientific method will cause it to be discarded.
> And according to a strong consensus of the scientific community, the data supports anthropogenic climate change.
Supports its existence, yes. Supports the claim that it is the major, primary contributor to global warming… not at all so clear. Not at all.
> Any reasonable person would take that to stead, fund additional research, and take reasonable measures — most of which have substantial secondary benefits anyway.
That doesn’t explain the fact that peer review groups are self-selected solely from proponents of AGW. That dissent is oppressed, that those who dissent are denied funding. Ahem, any reasonable person would take that to stead, fund additional research to determine the true nature of global warming in all its true facets.
> What you fail to acknowledge is that the well being of actual human beings depends on taking action to protect the environment. Just think of it this way. Again, either the U.S. can lead on this, or they will cede the technology to others.
The debate is whether the causes of global warming are proven with enough precision to warrant hundreds of trillions of dollars to be spent – taxpayer money, by the way. It should not be spent if it will not be effective. It should not be spent on a wild goose chase. In particular that is true in this case, because most of the current proposals for combatting global warming would basically bomb civilization backwards a hundred years or more. Spending hundreds of trillions of taxpayer money that we really don’t even have to spend. This, in support of a supposed THEORY that, for all its “consensus”, has not been proven; and whose major scientific proponents (the Climate-Gate folk at East Anglia) have been engaged as much in politics as they have been in science, and are under the cloud of suspicion of outright fraud.
I’m not the only one claiming that the manner in which global warming “science” has been managed in the last two decades has actually resulted in a huge black eye for “science”, and has caused the skeptical public to begin to doubt any and all claims of “science” that have any political overtones to it at all. The “science” has been corrupted by its practitioners, and they have a LOT to answer for.
>>The U.S. could be a leading exporter of the new technology.>>
Not likely. China is replacing us, due to cheap labor and no environmental regulations to deal with. We are no longer major manufacturers.
And according to a strong consensus of the scientific community, the data supports anthropogenic climate change.
Like the fudged data does. Oh yeah. Tell me , brother. Nothing proves a hypothesis better than fudged data. At least in the minds of the data fudgers.