When delay becomes denial

There are folks who accept most of the IPCC analysis of climate change but for some reason engage in foot dragging over turning things around. At some point these rationalizations become almost the same as taking the position of head-in-the-sand climate change denialists.

http://blog.e3network.org/calling-out-the-delayers/#more-1405

 

Perhaps it is because your op blog and most of you AGW alarmist who whine about human activity causing global warming can only propose a pointless tax as a "solution"; perhaps it is because you alarmists seem to ignore that human survival does not not hang in the balance even if you were right; and perhaps it is because you alarmist disregard that the data has been cooked on this issue from the very beginning and people have been calling you on it repeatedly but you folks have a head-in-the-sand position that only things confirming your bias are true.

In the meantime, if you want to come put free solar panels on my roof, feel free, but I am not doling out $25K to save $20K over 20 years.

 

Define "accept"? As long as we are talking about people who nod uninterestedly when some mouthpiece for the "do as I say, not as I do" crowd, then sure, folks accept. But when it is missionaries advocating for changes to "solve" the problems show up at meetings in SUVs, after having flown to the location to lecture others on how THEY should change their lifestyles? The preaching doesn't go over as well.

The undercurrent of fascism within the generally eco-friendly is quite strong, and it is wonderfully ironic that they tend to double clutch when you lead, or force, a CO2 diminished lifestyle to their doorstep. Of course, when I've presented eco missionary folks with just this argument, they claim that because they are spreading the word, they should be exempt from the consequences of their position. They can fly, just not you. They get SUVs (they have a big family and they are safe!), just not you. As a psychology experiment, it is all quite entertaining.

It isn't foot dragging. It is the realization that someone is in the windup for DEMANDING that you comply with...whatever. it doesn't even matter WHAT, but they can see the fascism you are offering coming from a mile away. I shall save you from this great evil you cannot see! My models say it is true! Do not think, do not delay, do not question....JUST DO AS I SAY!!!



Maybe it is more religious in nature? Could be.

 

A denialist and delayist in that order show us exactly what we are up against. Nice to know they are going off the cliff with the rest of us as the general direction of things seems to be in their favor.

By the way, I am perfectly happy to have a murderer vote for laws against murder. I don't require that he be consistent, just that he be ultimately arrested. Slob arguments are easily disposed of but not for their worshipers. When you live in a flat earth world you do enjoy the freedom to make it up as you go along and indulge all your paranoid conspiracy fantasies to the nth degree. I think that is part of the attraction of being de-anchored from reality. You never have to apologize, just reimagine the world. To these folks Dick Cheney is an expert on the Middle East.

 

If humans decide to go off a cliff, well, then maybe they will.

This has nothing to do with whether or not we ARE going off a cliff of course, but I am a fan of how things happen, versus how people WISH them to happen.

I'll take your word for what flat earth worlders are like, after 15 years as a scientist I certainly found no value in tolerating that particular mindset. But if you say so, then sure, fine, but I've got no experience or need for the type.

Sounds like you do have quite a bit of experience with this mind-set. Like I said, I'll take your word for it then, in my world someone without objectivity or the ability to ask and find answers to basic questions doesn't last 5 minutes.

 

So you would like to believe. Unfortunately for you you are on the record.

 

Of course I am. Domestically and internationally, in peer reviewed science journals on various topics related to oil and gas model modeling, ranging from well level to the oil production economic models for the entire globe, improvements to stochastic methods for quantifying undiscovered and/or technically recoverable resource sizes, new stochastic modeling methods for quantifying biological impact assessments based on the development of oil and gas resources, etc etc.

Never been afraid of a word I've written. Which is why I tend to be literal, and why you are forced to misstate what I say to your own ends, rather than use what I say directly.

 

is there a single national science based organization that denies CC and the threat it poses humanity? no...is there any national government on the planet that denies the reality, the economic consquences or danger of AGW? No....but denier world continues to live in their bubble of pretend science knowledge and self delusion completely at odds with what has become accepted scientific reality...so deluded they're even unaware the scientific debate ended long ago and the world is laughing at them, CC/AGW deniers have become the CC equivalent of alien abduction kooks, birthers and bigfoot hunters...

 

Quite a few do.

 

Oh yeah? Name them! Or admit that you're just blowing smoke....

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
* Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

Your declaration did not include just scientific bodies, but the just one whose name you demand is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

 

A request and a question.
1. Do you accept AGW? Feel free to elaborate.

2. Would you link me to a scientific article of yours. It is hard for me to connect you with serious science but I am perfectly happy to be corrected. Interestingly I never had more science thrown my way than when I was discussing realities with 911 Truthers.

 

I always like the mcdonalds hamburger quality approach to arguing climate science myself…there is just such a ring of hysteria about those who try this one on and hope others don't notice its underlying flaw….

 

I accept CLIMATE CHANGE as anyone with training in the geosciences would. I accept human created CO2 emissions changing the amount of CO2 that would otherwise be in the atmosphere.

The last time someone found out who I was (a peak oiler type) they showed up at the office, and made it all the way to building security prior to being forcibly stopped. So no, I provide no personal information to anyone online.

Fortunately, I am not using my own scientific publications as a component of my views, other than to establish that science, up to and including reviews by the national academy of sciences, is something I am…familiar... with.

Which also explains my natural tendency to value thinking about something, particularly the fundamentals, rather than the kind of stunts pulled by the parrots in this forum, cut and paste bandits without any real understanding of the core issues.

Core issues matter. Try AAPG Studies in Geology, #47. Better yet, call Lee up and talk to him about natural variability. Assuming he is still active, my last discussion with him was at a conference probably about 5 years ago now maybe? He is an older guy, might not be involved anymore. But anyone can read his work, or that work he edited.

 

LOLOLOLOLOL......that's soooo funny.....and soooooo lost in a deluded, brainwashed fantasy world.....

Wyly asked: "is there a single national science based organization that denies CC and the threat it poses humanity? no...is there any national government on the planet that denies the reality, the economic consquences or danger of AGW? No....".

You falsely claimed that: "Quite a few do."

It is hilarious that you imagine that the fossil fuel industry sponsored travesty of science called the 'NIPCC ' is a "national science based organization" instead of the oil/gas/coal industry front group and pseudo-science propaganda outlet that it is.

 

Cute avoidance response. I asked about AGW and you do a nice run around. An answer that is not an answer. So typical.

For God's sake the majority view now is that at least the fossil fuel peak has not been reached. The articles on the topic are endless. Oh well, I'll take your word for it, the answer is no. I reserve the right to have my doubts about your published scientific work.

 

Honest answer. And remember, I have no fear of what I write because I do try and write what I mean, and recognizing "when you stop beating your wife" setups isn't that hard.

It is an answer. One I can prove within geosciences without even trying hard...therefore I readily stipulate.

My opinion on whether or not humans themselves are directly responsible for warming hasn't been formed yet, to a large extent because the critical science at the fundamental level has not been answered within the scientific literature to date. Without some fundamental knowledge FIRST, all of the fastest computers in the world, running the most complex formulas and smartest regression algorithms mean nothing....because they don't even know if they are just modeling NOISE in the system. That one to watch out for I was taught by a Air Force Academy professor of physics.

Certainly my opinion on this topic, and professional world, would support this position. I don't give a rat's ass if it is the majority opinion or not, science isn't run by consensus and neither is my professional analysis of resource sizes, utilization, and costs stretching off into the future.

You should always have doubts. I always have doubts. Science is all about doubts, getting things wrong, learning from them, trying again, each time building a better idea. Ideas are FORGED in the heat of doubt and fear of being wrong, they do not spring to life fully formed.

 

Speaking of controversial topics has your thinking caught up with biological evolution yet?

It's also about developing the simplest theory based on consistency with the available evidence. When you lack competing views consistent with the facts getting mired down with endless doubts seems somewhat indulgent. Find a scientific counterpart to AGW and I'll be happy to listen. But denialism is not doubt, it is simply a preference for fantasy. The war with facts almost always seems to be ladled with heavy doses of paranoid conspiracies - like they are all out to get me.

 

And yet here we are today with no evidence to support your claim. Blah, blah, blah........LoSiNG

 

When ideology comes up against evidence the ideologue sticks with his flat earth views. Just the persistent popularity of Rush Limbaugh is proof of that and of course you.

 

As best I can tell, Darwin was right.

Again with the "stop beating your wife" setups.

A counter idea is not required to discredit another. Those who assert must prove…. for a reason, and when those so busy doing the asserting that they are trying to silence their critics (as if that alone isn't a clue), also can't even establish that their models understand natural climate variability….well…we've got an issue and it has nothing to do with simplest theories or "science is settled" or the kind of sales pitch advocated by Stephen Schneider a couple decades back.

You really want to claim to have a predictive model? Cool…show it to the world on known temperatures in the past, at least then we'll know it has a chance. I wonder why this is so difficult to come up with? Take all those climate models, making all these overestimated temperature projections, and run it back 250,000 years and show us how well it works.

I'm not warring with facts at all, I am surprised that standard engineering modeling techniques like back-casting are being ignored. Warring with facts might not even be the issue, if Stephen Schneider and his opinion on selling scary scenarios has been internalized by those doing the science on this issue.

 

But not necessarily AGW. Neither have counter ideas that stand up and both are in agreement with the evidence so far. So what's your problem?

I say based on your many past comments it's environmentalists out to take away your rights. You might have some science in your background but you sound like a denialist at heart, with all the paranoia that goes with it.

Do you know anything about Occam's Razor? You don't sound like you do.

By the way what predictive models do you get from evolution? Want to tell me what species are going to show up 100 million years from now?

As for models showing the relationship between CO2 and temperature we have ice core samples going back 600,000 years.

If you got a degree as a scientist I'd say you got it under fall pretenses. This high school dropout knows more about science than you do.

 

Correct. Certainly the effort is being applied to try and prove AGW...it appears to be a bit one sided but I think science will sort it out just as it has other things.

The evidence is that temperatures can increase, decrease, or stay stable. And have. That is not AGW. AGW is a conclusion installed on top of the current temperature (or lack thereof) trend. And noticing normalcy bias isn't a problem, it is a gift.

Environmentalists are trying to do what they think is right. As was Stalin. Slippery slope and all that. And some environmentalists have already arrived at this point, so this isn't a hypothetical.

deepgreenresistance.org/en/

I do. But it doesn't do you any good, because it would dictate that the simplistic explanation is the same one that has been changing temperature, in both directions, for millennium. So...you shouldn't mention Occam's Razor, because it certainly would disqualify all the complexity of the AGW (people and power plants and cars and weather and models...geez..where does it end!) as unnecessary in the face of a far simpler, and obviously effective, explanation.

Sure we do. Its great! Now if we can just get one of those fancy models using that relationship to actually predict the changes in temperature along the way. Cart, horse, etc etc.

I don't have a "degree" as a scientist, never even heard of such a thing. I'm an engineer, who just happened to get roped into scientisty stuff. I never have really thought about research as "science", I've always considered it "studyin' stuff". But you do it for an oil company and its called "litigation defense", you do it for scientists and write it up and its "science", you do it for analytic organizations and they call it "analysis".

I've always just considered it "studyin' stuff".

 

Interesting link. Hey, you're good for something. lol

What simpler and obviously effective explanation? The conflation of ghg rise and temperature increase over the long run seems pretty simple to me and the evidence says it is accurate.

It predicts trends just fine over the long term within a range. When you are dealing with multiple variables you don't expect up to the minute accuracy. Using the earth circling the sun standard is a bit ridiculous.

Apparently your "studyin' stuff" didn't include the understanding that economics is embedded in environmental resources.

 

Simpler. Interesting. So now it's simple. so then again you have the word correlation confused with the word causation. Seems you can't get passed that point. Too bad, seemed like you were much more intelligent than that. My bad for that assumption.

Second, you keep making statements that are factually incorrect. To make them correct you must first provide the evidence that 120 PPM of CO2 causes any temperature increase. the models have not shown that, and to date no experiment that shows that, so for right now, you are batting .000......hahahahahaahaha, you all crack me up you think...ah think.....you know something. You know nothing.... But us deniers.......we be WINNING!!!!!