Climate Lukewarmers and Pragmatism

What I'm saying is that the lobbying power is gigantically weighted in favor of oil, gas and coal interests and AWAY from science.

And, once again, when you say "government" you need to be saying "governments".

When you go to pitch your conspiracy theories you have to recognize that such a conspiracy would need to involve numerous governments as well as climate scientists the world over.

I've never seen anyone even attempt to show how such a vast conspiracy could be possible.

But, feel free to try!

 

The IPCC is a government created report writing organization that does no science. Simple as that. It was created to report to government based on what government wants reported. All of the money goes to that, not to anything that would show any scientific skepticism of the government agenda.

 

"investing" is far and away the biggest leftwad lie word ever.

If I lose, you lose. If WE spend money with no conception of what the return might be we may as well burn it by the bushel. There is NO difference.

Any fool can see that most models have failed. Something like 90-95% are complete garbage. That you won't admit to that fact, one of the very few facts in the entire cannon, marks you as intellectually dishonest. /debate.

 

The Jason model, created in 1970's is still accurate within a tenth of a degree. It handled the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo and keeps on ticking.

Climatology has progressed since 1970.

The nonsense about inaccurate models fails to include analysis/comment by science.


AND, let's remember that we do NOT wait for 100% before we act. We acted on our economy by doing TARP - twice!! Yet we STILL don't know even after the fact how much of a difference that made!

So, I propose that you are wrong, but it doesn't matter, because you aren't even asking the right questions.

 

A broken clock is accurate twice per day, with the point being that if you choose from enough models, one is bound to be accurate at some point in time. A lot of people will be predicting the score for the Super Bowl today, and someone will be exactly right. Does that mean their model for predicting the score is therefore infallible? Will that same model accurately predict the score next year?

One could use this rationale for anything. The fact remains that there needs to be a sufficient amount of confidence before proceeding. The debate lies within what is the level of confidence before proceeding, and who determines the level of confidence that exists. Saying platitudes like we don't have to wait for 100% look at TARP, has no value in the conversation whatsoever.

 

Nonsense, every university world wide with a meteorological or geography department its getting crap loads of money out of this not just two or three and not just in the US. were I you I'd be far more concerned about tipping the balance to far in the other direction and triggering another snowball earth effect. Warming is generally good cooling is really really bad.

 

No, the model I mentioned has been consistently accurate over the past 30+ years.

Your super bowl thing is nonsense. It would only be slightly better if you suggested that the person correctly predicted the scores in the last 30 super bowls.

And, I promise you, THAT would have people excited - even those who don't have a clue about climate models.


As Newt Gingrich pointed out, we make public policy based on odds X cost. On the odds side, science agrees that we're warming and that the human component of that is the largest factor.

On the cost side, the Pentagon has stated a need for increased budget to offset national security risks of warming. You can look up the Chesapeake Bay plan to see the costs that region is incurring. You can read about the wall being built by India against Bangladeshis who are suffering climate caused agriculture stress and are thus hungry. You can read about Somalia - a nation where agricultural incapacity is a major component of their status as a failed state - with more candidate failed states. You can note that NOLA is seeing almost a full centimeter per year of sea rise - some of which is due to settling. etc. There are numerous sources of costs today - but the real impact is yet to come as temperatures increase.

And, you wouldn't know a platitude if it was YOU who spewed it.

 

It has accurately predicted the temperature in every year? I don't suppose you have a link to this data do you?

It has accurately predicted the temperature in every year? I don't suppose you have a link to this data do you?

As I said, the debate lies within what is the level of confidence before proceeding, and who determines the level of confidence that exists. Saying platitudes like " we don't have to wait for 100% look at Tarp", do nothing to further the debate. It is a meaningless statement

A government agency requesting more money? wow....that IS surprising

 

BS.

These institutions have no funding for lobbying congress. And, THAT is the issue here - the issue of how is congress influenced.

Getting grants for studies does NOT mean the university has a slush fund with which they can take whatever action they want.

The major oil companies, on the other hand, have gigantic revenue which the CAN use, in part, to lobby congress.

 

Here's an article worth reading:.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...te-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming
It contains the quote: "The claim that climate models are unreliable is the 6th-most popular contrarian myth."

And, no, the statement about how we make the decision to implement policy is ABSOLUTELY spot on.

What it goes to is this notion that our information isn't perfect. The answer to that is two fold:
- our predictive capability is damn good.
- we NEVER look for perfect in making the decision to implement policy. In fact, like with TARP, we often even disagree on whether the policy will be effective. Even now, after the fact, we don't know what TARP might have done.

Having a rational discussion needs to start with there being a basic understanding of what it is that we should be looking for. And, I'm tired of this nonsense about waiting for perfect results, sandwiched between the efforts of those who have NO science understanding making stupid accusations about what we DO have.

(I'm not pointing that last part at you - it's just something I believe is going on.)

- - - Updated - - -

That's not a very strong argument!!

You claimed concern about costs. If that's real, you could go look up why the Pentagon states that warming is going to cost you.

 

This "Ozone depletion is a hoax!" conspiracy theory is a good example supporting Lewandowski's paper on Conspiracy Ideation. That is, those who fall for one conspiracy theory ("Global Warming is a Fraud!") tend to fall for a whole bunch of conspiracy theories.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Most deniers declared that paper was a conspiracy against them, thus further confirming its results. As another example, ask any denier about DDT, and most of them will recite a conspiracy theory about how the partial ban of DDT supposedly killed millions.

 

You mean the Lewandowski's paper that had to be pulled? LOL Lewandowski has made a proper fool of himself.

Australian Psychologists Now Claim Climate Science Skeptics Are The True Moon-Landing Conspiracy Theorists

 

The Carbonista thieves of liberty cannot even construct the most rudimentary cost/benefit analysis without a well modeled problem AND they betray their actual goals when they press on in spite of this fatal flaw.

They KNOW better than you. About energy. About society. About caapitalism. About taxation. Your freedom is the problem. Climate change is the vehicle to steal it.

 

It's massaged data to achieve the headline goal. One paper. Junk. Typical. Agenda science with a pure political end.

 

In other words...........You do NOT have a link for your claim that the Jason Climate Model has been accurate every year for over 3 decades. For the record, that is twice in this thread you have made claims that when pushed for proof of that claim, you have failed to do so. You don't get to make up facts to suit your argument at the moment.

Ironically, the link you just told me to read, particularly the snippet you highlighted here, is from a pro global warming article that is explaining away the lack of accuracy, and going back in hindsight and explaining why they think they were wrong, as opposed to trumpeting the models accuracy.

The fact that government agencies are constantly clamoring for more money isn't as much of an argument, as it is a statement of common sense.

 

?? So, you want a statement of model accuracy from a site that DENIES warming?

Seriously? Doesn't that seem a little silly even to YOU? After all, once you notice the modes are correct it's game over for you.

And, you seem not to get the point that the Pentagon asking for more money isn't rare, but you can find out from them WHY warming IS a national security issue.

 

I asked you for proof of your claim that the Jason model was prospectively accurate every year for over 30 years. I didn't tell you what site to use. What are you even talking about in regards to a site that denies warming ? What site is that? You responded with something that excused away the inaccuracy of models in general. Very strange choice, and DEFINITELY not proof of your claim.

 

This is not the first time experts in some narrow field of expertise were left to believe that their field of expertise was the most important thing in the world and that life on earth, as we know it, depended upon their contributions. I have personally heard politicians and preachers make the same claims and distort the facts in the same spirit to their ends.

Nothing new here; move along.

On climate, I find Bjorn Lormborg the best reasoned and most believable.

 

Yes, a journal pulled it because deniers went on a mass-email campaign of threatening legal action.

That's another charming aspect of deniers, the way they use thug tactics to achieve censorship, and the way they're openly proud of doing so.

 

So just to be clear, you're criticizing the deniers and their very peculiar tunnel-vision, right?

I just ask because the experts from every field of science confirm global warming science, which is like the direct opposite of a single field of expertise.

 

I am not swayed by those you mention. I stand by my opinion, "The emperor has no clothes."

As to 'consensus', almost everyone who ever dedicated their lives to 'science' was dead wrong. That's easy for us to see about them now, but it's not always so easy for us to see that about ourselves now.

Anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change is an anthropocentric arrogance at best and a hoax at worst.
We're simply not all that.

 

But the experts have been proven right, over and over. For example, look how closely temperatures have tracked the models.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100322194954/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2/



Global warming scientists have pretty much gotten everything right for decades running now, which is why they have such credibility. If deniers want similar credibility, they need to earn it by doing actual science. But they don't. Instead, they constantly invoke the VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy, which simply confirms to everyone that they're motivated by politics instead of science.

 

Um every western country has, does it not, a department of education? Every western country at least has does it not bodies within and without the government that award grants to universities to make studies. They don't need a lobby they are part of the government.

 

When the science became settled, that should have been the last red flag needed, but religious people don't pay attention to red flags, especially if it calls into question their religious beliefs.

Here is the fact of the matter. We should be warming up, even if man were not here. Since man is here, he is probably speeding the warming up. But the earth will warm up, regardless of man, for that is the natural cycle.

When the ice caps melt, and the glaciers of Greenland, what follows that will be the next ice age. We cycle. How do you think all of that oil got under the artic regions? Did you actually believe that the earth would not once again lose its ice caps? Climate cycles.

And BTW, we had droughts during the 1930s that caused a great displacement of people out of the dust bowl areas. How long did that drought last? Global warming? Then it should still be drought conditions there, running from the 1930s until today. Is it? We suffered droughts in part of the southeast a few years running back in 07, if I recall correctly. The corn would only get knee high. Our corn grew fine for the last couple years, so that drought ended or is coming to an end. As will the drought in Ca. The Mayans suffered a drought that ended their civilization. Global warming? I guess they were riding around in their cars and pumping co2 into the atmosphere, as they were manufacturing implements to remove human hearts in their sacrifices.


The earth appears to be in climate change, warming up just a little bit. Nothing drastic at all, in so far as temps. The climate never stays static. Plus, the ice age, or interglacial period ends regardless of man or not. Suck it up, and accept it, but lets not hurt the poor anymore than we have already hurt them. As a NASA scientist said, if we cut co2 today by 80 percent, guess what? The earth will continue to warm up, period, just a tiny bit slower than it would otherwise, for the next 500 years, or so he said. Time to stop the religious and their hysterics. It doesn't become grown men and women to be so childish. Leave the hysterics to the two year old who got his candy taken away. Please, it's getting so old and tired.

Man controlling climate change is no different than a flea jumping up an elephant's leg, screaming rape! We don't even have enough understanding of climate to me making these predictions, as all of those failed models have proven. SO what will it take for the alarmists to accept reality? Like a believer in god, there is probably nothing that will change their minds. People get so religious about almost any thing these days.

 

LOL, it was pulled because it was poorly done. Nice try but Lewandowski made his own errors.