OT. Global WHAT?

Jud · February 21, 2015

Climate moves in cycles. We don't (yet) fully understand what those cycles are...but that doesn't stop the so called experts using doctored models and data to claim global warming.

Again - The level of consensus in the scientific community regarding how this works, what causes it, and where it's headed is greater than it is regarding gravity. Do you think we need to move from 99.8% to 99.9% scientific consensus before we act? Do you still consider gravity provisional?

esldude · February 21, 2015

Again - The level of consensus in the scientific community regarding how this works, what causes it, and where it's headed is greater than it is regarding gravity. Do you think we need to move from 99.8% to 99.9% scientific consensus before we act? Do you still consider gravity provisional?

I think we need to be 110% correct. Meaning we need 120% consensus with a 10% margin of error to be certain we don't go wrong. Just to be sure, don't you?

Jud · February 21, 2015

I think we need to be 110% correct. Meaning we need 120% consensus with a 10% margin of error to be certain we don't go wrong. Just to be sure, don't you?

Since gravity is provisional, let me fly over to your place without an airplane and discuss it.

esldude · February 21, 2015

Since gravity is provisional, let me fly over to your place without an airplane and discuss it.

Well it is good to see someone open minded and not part of that gravity conspiracy thing Newton put over on us. Then Einstein tried to make it messy so it wasn't easy to see the basic error.

dean70 · February 21, 2015

Again - The level of consensus in the scientific community regarding how this works, what causes it, and where it's headed is greater than it is regarding gravity. Do you think we need to move from 99.8% to 99.9% scientific consensus before we act? Do you still consider gravity provisional?

Emphasis on the word consensus. There is not enough critical thinking applied to the theories IMO. The slightest public opposition gets shouted down with personal attacks, etc. It is more like a religious cult than scientific research. Many seem to have a lot of emotional (not necessarily logical) investment tied up to the cause. What would be the solution anyway - de-industialize?

Many of the "green" alternatives result in more pollution and toxic byproducts in their manufacture and disposal than current tech.

ps: it is not about gravity. (another subtle tactic I have seen time again to create a straw-man augment).

Jud · February 21, 2015

Emphasis on the word consensus. There is not enough critical thinking applied to the theories IMO. The slightest public opposition gets shouted down with personal attacks, etc. It is more like a religious cult than scientific research. Many seem to have a lot of emotional (not necessarily logical) investment tied up to the cause. What would be the solution anyway - de-industialize?

Many of the "green" alternatives result in more pollution and toxic byproducts in their manufacture and disposal than current tech.

ps: it is not about gravity. (another subtle tactic I have seen time again to create a straw-man augment).

Ah, so if all the scientists agree, it is because they, unlike the general public, are all so easily fooled and unaware of how to think in an informed, logical fashion about scientific problems.

By the way, no, bringing up gravity isn't a "straw man argument." It would be a straw man if I *covertly* substituted a weaker global climate denial argument for the one you actually made, but I don't think that's possible. No, I'm quite overtly saying that there is at least one scientifically respectable counter-theory with regard to gravitation - Modified Newtonian dynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - which makes one more than exists with regard to anthropogenic global warming.

firedog · February 21, 2015

Paul-

My problem with your position is this: reacting to climate change basically means reducing carbon use. In other words, making the economy more efficient and less dependent on fossil fuels. How is this a bad thing? It would have some very small short/medium term negative economic effect, and positive longer term economic effect.

Denying it, or even saying "wait", can mean waiting too long to succeed, or waiting long enough that the eventual economic effect is worse than it could be.

So logically the situation is this: a) accept predictions now are correct and act to reduce climate change. Result: more efficient economy based on less use of fossil fuels. Risk if you are wrong: you have reduced economic growth slightly in the short and medium term. b) deny climate change or delay action: result- the = status quo, slightly better short-medium term growth; risk if you are wrong: massive long term economic disruption and negative economic impact.

So what makes more sense: a low risk, low cost strategy that prevents severe economic disruption and provides long term benefit in any case; or a high risk strategy that trades a small economic gain in the short-medium term for potential economic catastrophe?

REShaman · February 21, 2015

for some balance

2014 Was Not the 'Hottest Year on Record'. So Why Did NASA Claim It Was? - Breitbart

the criteria by which NASA declared “2014 was the hottest year on record” do not stand up to serious scientific scrutiny.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.

Here is Le Bon on the most important weapon in the demagogue’s armoury:

It was Napoleon, I believe, who said that there is only one figure in rhetoric of serious importance, repetition. The thing affirmed comes by repetition to fix itself in the mind in such a way that it is accepted as a demonstrated truth.

The influence of repetition on crowds is comprehensible when the power is seen which it exercises on most enlightened minds. This power is due to the fact that the repeated statement is embedded in the long run in those profound regions of our unconscious selves in which the motives of our actions are forged. At the end of a certain time we have forgotten who is the author of the repeated assertion, and we finish by believing it. To this circumstance is due the astonishing power of advertisements. When we have read a hundred, a thousand, times that X’s chocolate is the best, we imagine we have heard it said in many quarters, and we end by acquiring the certitude that such is the fact.

In the late 60s, I started a career out of college as a (cub) copywriter at McCann-Erickson promoted out of the mailroom (those with only a college degrees instead of an MBA). Advertising Age held a conference and my agency sent me to attend. Fascinating. The Creative Director of BBD&O said something that I have never forgotten and immediately understood as being a powerful perspective and one to be mindful of. It only took me several months to decide, being clever and using thought forms to sell product was not my life's ambition. I resigned even though I was about to be promoted to Senior Supervising head writer for Coke International (the soft drink). The Creative Director during his keynote speech stated the following (not a paraphrase): "Given an unlimited budget, I could sell poverty to the People..." Of course The Creative Director had much more profound and cogent POVs in support of a larger view of the power of the influence of the media; and I have taken a few words of his out of a much larger context about the power of images, text and the message contained therein promoted by an unlimited budget and the influence on those who embrace those ideas and those who finance their highly desired outcomes.

What passes as indelible "truth" (the power of thought forms financed by enormous budgets to pervade the media continuously) and sbgk's (if I understand his perspective correctly) POV is spot "on" as a consequence. Of course, the manipulation of ideas and thought forms can be used for any desired outcome and influence, good or bad, positive or negative. Given the thought forms on each coast, The East (F...K you just in case) and The West Coast (Already enlightened) engineered thought forms are only successful when we capitulate our personal responsibility and fail to exercise our independent frame of reference to differentiate and discriminate. I am commenting at this time only because, at this particular time in my life, I am witnessing a Culture Shock (for too long now) given the dysfunctional factions seeking preeminence despite what a reality check reveals even whenThe Emperor is not wearing clothes. Even when You can fool most of the people most of the time is evidenced.

Between 55 and 65% of our bodies is composed of water depending on gender and body fat. Our Oceans are slowly dying. Quo Vadis?

Best,

Richard

dean70 · February 21, 2015

Ah, so if all the scientists agree, it is because they, unlike the general public, are all so easily fooled and unaware of how to think in an informed, logical fashion about scientific problems.

By the way, no, bringing up gravity isn't a "straw man argument." It would be a straw man if I *covertly* substituted a weaker global climate denial argument for the one you actually made, but I don't think that's possible. No, I'm quite overtly saying that there is at least one scientifically respectable counter-theory with regard to gravitation - Modified Newtonian dynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - which makes one more than exists with regard to anthropogenic global warming.

No some scientists may agree to "tow the line" as it were & not rock the research grant boat. As they say "money talks". There are $ to be made from this "industry". The few scientists that have been brave enough to speak out tend to not get too much serious media coverage & lots of ridicule.

Straw man is exactly what you have just created (under the guise of *covertly*)! Present a false argument and proceed to attack it.

Paul R · February 21, 2015

There is greater scientific consensus regarding the causes and directionality of climate change than about gravity at the moment. Think about that.

Jud- are you joking?

We may not know all the fundamental bits about gravity, but we have known for centuries how to use it very very effectively. And calculate those results to very very precise tolerances. There is nothing like that kind of precision in climate science at this time. Much less in planetary scale engineering.

I utterly agree that climate change is perhaps, the most deadly threat facing the race. We have been running an uncontrolled and unplanned experiment in planetary climate engineering for several hundred years now. If that doesn't frighten a person, nothing will. But we know less about climate change and engineering climate change than Newton did about the orbit of Saturn. Seriously.

-Paul

P.S. I am not representing any particular group by the way, or any "side" of the argument.

esldude · February 21, 2015

No some scientists may agree to "tow the line" as it were & not rock the research grant boat. As they say "money talks". There are $ to be made from this "industry". The few scientists that have been brave enough to speak out tend to not get too much serious media coverage & lots of ridicule.

Straw man is exactly what you have just created (under the guise of *covertly*)! Present a false argument and proceed to attack it.

Who is to gain by this biased toe the line approach? By that, I don't mean the scientists looking for grant money. I mean why would grant money in favor of a warming be more plentiful than the reverse? You don't think Koch money would flow freely to some group of researchers who would toe another line and show how warming isn't happening or how it has nothing to do with human activity?

Your argument is ridiculous on several levels.

Paul R · February 21, 2015

Paul-
My problem with your position is this: reacting to climate change basically means reducing carbon use. In other words, making the economy more efficient and less dependent on fossil fuels. How is this a bad thing? It would have some very small short/medium term negative economic effect, and positive longer term economic effect.

I shudder think what you might propose as a large negative economic effect. The low price of oil int he U.S. has had an enormous effect on the economy, and not all of it positive. That's just in the U.S., it has had large but other less positive effects elsewhere in the world.

Let's look for a second at the statement you take as a given:

reacting to climate change basically means reducing carbon use

Does it now? Have you got any hard proof that reducing carbon emissions has made or will make any positive effect in global climate change? In fact, where are the hard facts on what the hundreds of billions of tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by modern actives has already caused? What about the planetary albedo? What about carbon emissions that are not from usage? Have you found a way to balance reduced carbon emissions in developed countries with the relative increase in carbon emitting actives in *developing* countries? How about those volcanic emissions under the ocean? The carbon emitted from stripping rain forests?

There are hundreds, if not thousands, more factors to consider, and control, and most importantly, to understand their effects.

The planet is incredibly resilient - the worst we could do to would be like a minor scratch healing up in a few thousands of years at the most. I am not at all worried about saving the planet. Savings the humans and other animals? Yeah- I am into that.

Denying it, or even saying "wait", can mean waiting too long to succeed, or waiting long enough that the eventual economic effect is worse than it could be.

Says who? And worse than what? Blundering around blind trying to "correct" damage we don't even understand? The consensus that Jud was talking about is that damage is happening, humans are at least partly the cause of it, and that action needs to be taken. There is far less consensus on exactly what the damage is, or what action needs to be taken.

Ten years, or even twenty, are nothing in the timespan we are talking about. Take sensible actions yes, but don't turn the planet into a iceball or a barren desert while we are doing it.

It irks me that anyone who says we need to understand what we are doing is branded as a denier, and treated with some patronization by those whose believe they are in the "know." Bloody hell, some scientist telling me not to worry because I can't possibly understand what they have studied and understand far better than I do? Yet they cannot answer supposedly simple questions like the above? You want to trust the future of the race to people like that? Are they political demagogs like we have so often in the past trusted our future to?

So logically the situation is this: a) accept predictions now are correct and act to reduce climate change. Result: more efficient economy based on less use of fossil fuels. Risk if you are wrong: you have reduced economic growth slightly in the short and medium term. b) deny climate change or delay action: result- the = status quo, slightly better short-medium term growth; risk if you are wrong: massive long term economic disruption and negative economic impact.

So what makes more sense: a low risk, low cost strategy that prevents severe economic disruption and provides long term benefit in any case; or a high risk strategy that trades a small economic gain in the short-medium term for potential economic catastrophe?

Of course a low risk strategy makes sense. But blindly meddling with systems as complex as planetary climate- that is not low risk. You should agree with that, since that is exactly what we have been doing for so long, and what created the current mess. Case in point, we barely have compute systems capable of handling the data we gather for climate change for one day - much less for multiple years.

Systems Analysis is complex.

dean70 · February 21, 2015

Who is to gain by this biased toe the line approach? By that, I don't mean the scientists looking for grant money. I mean why would grant money in favor of a warming be more plentiful than the reverse? You don't think Koch money would flow freely to some group of researchers who would toe another line and show how warming isn't happening or how it has nothing to do with human activity?

Your argument is ridiculous on several levels.

Hardly. Monied & political interests usually get the outcome they desire. Not toeing the line could be bad for a scientific career. Being a "troublemaker" is not something that you would want on your resume.

On the other side of the coin is that climate moves in cycles. Look at our pre-historic times. What is now desert used to be lush vegetation & vice-versa. Though I agree we should not be cutting down huge swathes of rain-forest, which still occurs to this day despite all the talk about carbon emissions nonsense.

wakibaki · February 21, 2015

I warned you guys about the class A amplifiers, but you didn't have your golden ears on.

dean70 · February 21, 2015

Don't forget the IPCC scandals with the leaked emails. How quickly did that go away? These guys seem to be made of teflon.

mayhem13 · February 21, 2015

Ah, so if all the scientists agree, it is because they, unlike the general public, are all so easily fooled and unaware of how to think in an informed, logical fashion about scientific problems.

By the way, no, bringing up gravity isn't a "straw man argument." It would be a straw man if I *covertly* substituted a weaker global climate denial argument for the one you actually made, but I don't think that's possible. No, I'm quite overtly saying that there is at least one scientifically respectable counter-theory with regard to gravitation - Modified Newtonian dynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - which makes one more than exists with regard to anthropogenic global warming.

Amazing how you can empirically accept GCC theories yet look for more info on USB cables?

dean70 · February 21, 2015

I warned you guys about the class A amplifiers, but you didn't have your golden ears on.

Low carbon footprint amps DACs and cables are more resolving

Jud · February 21, 2015

Don't forget the IPCC scandals with the leaked emails. How quickly did that go away? These guys seem to be made of teflon.

Right, that's because as we all know, those scientists will all toe the line and agree on everything because they are all cowards motivated by grant money. Any notion why that doesn't work on any other scientific topic you want to name, with the possible exceptions of the theory of evolution and the germ theory of disease?

Jud · February 21, 2015

Amazing how you can empirically accept GCC theories yet look for more info on USB cables?

Well, either I've chosen the one single topic about which to be unscientific, or perhaps potential differences in sound among digital cables are not inconsistent with a scientific habit of thought.

Jabs1542 · February 21, 2015

Who is to gain by this biased toe the line approach? By that, I don't mean the scientists looking for grant money. I mean why would grant money in favor of a warming be more plentiful than the reverse? You don't think Koch money would flow freely to some group of researchers who would toe another line and show how warming isn't happening or how it has nothing to do with human activity?

I don't know, but the battery companies made out pretty well in the auto industry. That political train left the station before they could finish working out the bugs with hydrogen. I guess the next group to profit from the electric car deal will be the superfund disposal sites burying all those dead batteries. Sometimes moving too fast can have negative effects.

Jud · February 21, 2015

Have you got any hard proof that reducing carbon emissions has made or will make any positive effect in global climate change?

This is as well established as, oh, just picking a random example, the orbit of Saturn.

Really.

Systems Analysis is complex.

Good thing all the systems analyses point the same way or it might be harder to draw conclusions. Seriously, read the academic journals and other scientific publications to see how definitive the models are and how much is known. My friend, your impression of the level of uncertainty surrounding the science is completely at variance with reality on this particular topic.

esldude · February 21, 2015

Don't forget the IPCC scandals with the leaked emails. How quickly did that go away? These guys seem to be made of teflon.

Oh yeah, real scandal. You must never have worked with large groups of people on complex projects with reams of data involved. The "scandal" was nothing of the sort. Just the kind of correspondence that goes on during such an endeavour.

Jud · February 21, 2015

Oh yeah, real scandal. You must never have worked with large groups of people on complex projects with reams of data involved. The "scandal" was nothing of the sort. Just the kind of correspondence that goes on during such an endeavour.

Nasty emails negate all scientific research in *my* book - don't know why you can't see the obvious, Dennis.

Jud · February 21, 2015

I don't know, but the battery companies made out pretty well in the auto industry. That political train left the station before they could finish working out the bugs with hydrogen. I guess the next group to profit from the electric car deal will be the superfund disposal sites burying all those dead batteries. Sometimes moving too fast can have negative effects.

Just probing the bogosity level - are you suggesting AGW is a worldwide conspiracy in favor of Elon Musk against poor powerless General Motors and the petroleum industry, or something not quite so entertaining?

esldude · February 21, 2015

I guess the other notable thing about this 97% consensus is how the critics about the supposed cooling (actually more of a diminished warming) haven't effected the conspiracy. If you are cooking the books, making this up, and such why not just have the numbers cooked to show a clear and steady trend silencing the critics of the real data? Have to wonder what advanced kind of scam works like that, but these monied interests are so powerful we probably have no hope of figuring it out.

Of course if the monied interests had 97% consensus on any goal they probably could just withold money any way they wish. No need to go through these IPCC histronics spanning decades now. I guess they are playing the long con, the really long con.

OT. Global WHAT?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in