Global protests over climate change

[samran]

Love watching the denialalistas get angry amongst themselves.

Denialista A: grrrr

B: no, Grrrr

A: no GRRR

B: No GRRR!

A: NO!! GRRRRR!!!

C: Al Gore!

A&B: GRRRR!!!!! ( heads explode)

One of your more adult posts. Must have taken you hours to work this one out.

Quick inspiration riding the skytrain home. You blokes give me plenty to work with.

[Scott]

Not bad, Samran, if your riding the skytrain. It's pretty fast. You can probably be a lot more cutting if you were sitting in a car stuck in traffic.

But....we really should try to focus on the topic.

[Thakkar]

Love watching the denialalistas get angry amongst themselves.

Denialista A: grrrr

B: no, Grrrr

A: no GRRR

B: No GRRR!

A: NO!! GRRRRR!!!

C: Al Gore!

A&B: GRRRR!!!!! ( heads explode)

Echo chambers have that effect.

T

[JDGRUEN]

Weather Channel Founder John Coleman Explains Liberal Global Warming Hoax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k#t=16

[Thakkar]

For anyone interested, BBC Business Daily podcast for Sept 26, called In The Balance--Climate Challenges has a lively debate on the issue. About 25 minutes long.

T

[Tep]

There are many indications that there is no environmental component to the climate debate, and that it is totally about a political agenda which is essentially supranational, unaccountable, regulatory and anti-free market.

That is, the agenda came first, and supporters then cast around for a suitable justification. Climate change fit the bill perfectly. It is politically correct, it is global, and it targets the cream of the capitalist crop -- the fossil fuel companies.

To politicians, of course, it is like catnip to a cat. By invoking climate change, politicians can suspend for a minute being regarded as sleazy vote-grubbers, and portray themselves as planetary saviours. The ego boost is tremendous. They see themselves as the noble hero in a planetary drama.

This is why the rhetoric is always similarly grandiose, from Kevin Rudd, who in 2007 called climate change "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time", to Ban-Ki Moon, who called it "a defining issue of our time" last weekend.

Liberal journalists love it; they get to parade their environmental credentials; NGOs love it, because they can attract more funding; and bureaucrats love it because it creates make-work for a new tranche of worthless paper-pushers.

But the trick is to disguise this agenda as being genuinely environmental, so a relentless and largely bogus campaign is waged to show stranded polar bears on ice-floes, weeping Bangladeshi villagers looking at withered rice crops, or Carteret Islanders fleeing their homeland in whaleskin boats.

The apex of these efforts came in 2005 when the United Nations solemnly declared that climate change would cause 50 million refugees by 2010. The actual figure, as far as anyone can gauge, was zero.

You will point out that if the climate change supporters have an agenda, and serve vested interests, then so do their opponents in big industry. To which I would reply, this is not a symmetric game. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you are going to state that we only have two years in which to take radical action to avoid a "planetary catastrophe" then you'd better be able to back it up. And the climate change establishment has utterly failed to do that, despite a continuous stream of agit-prop from the constituencies above.

I could have put it more simply; from the evidence that I and my fellow-travellers have seen, we have no trust in the good faith of the people pushing the climate agenda. Their methods are like those of second-hand car salesmen, and so that is how we must view them.

Is it about ideology, as you suggest? Absolutely. Everyone brings their own ideology to each situation, and in the case of climate change, the science is so complex and far from settled, that ideology has a proportionately large role to play.

This is a well constructed argument. Now that I understand that we are not debating climate science, environmental impact of human activity or public policy responses to the climate change issue, then I feel more comfortable with what you are saying, that is, in posts like this and not the ones slagging off all and sundry. I had thought I had exhausted all I want to say but I find that there are still things you are saying with which I disagree.

My main issue is the way you guys on the right make a bogey man out of international and non US institutions, specifically the UN and generally anything European. I say before that I am comfortable that at a public policy level, there is consensus that the issue of the existence of climate change is settled. I acknowledge the widely varying interpretations on what that means and what the impacts really are. However, from this starting point, you need to profess to the issue of how to respond. Since the issue is trans-national, then the response should be similarly trans-national. For all the problems and dysfunction of the UN and EU and other regional bodies, surely they are best placed to work on the issue? I don't think that you can make effective arguments on the response to the climate change issue while your views on these international and non US institutions are so defined by the anti-liberal agenda.

Just like an assessment of climate change should start with the science, an yes there are difficulties, problems and arguments about that - but that's part of the scientific method, then the way in which a response to climate change should commence would be with those agreements and relationships between countries that already exists. I think the tendency for the US to opt out of multinational efforts, unless they are in absolute control of these efforts is a challenge.

My second issue that I take from your view and on which we may actually agree is that I believe the response to dealing with the impacts of climate change should be rational and based on functional market mechanisms. Lets take the issue of drinking water. I don't know the status of the science on this but my understanding is that there is a reasonable expectation that some climate patterns in some parts of the world will affect the availability of drinking water. This issue has not been satisfactorily addressed even in a pre-climate change world because drinking water is treated as a public good and and not as a commodity requiring investment and costs. Almost nowhere do people pay the true cost of the provision of drinking water. In some advanced economies where water is deregulated, such as the UK and US, then water is a commodity to be treated commercially, that is the investment returns have to cover the cost of capital but the full social and environmental costs of water supply are not included in tariffs even in these countries.

In less developed economies, they cannot even get sufficient investment in water to provide a reliable supply because water is under priced. So a well regulated water transportation network (pipelines are a natural monopoly) with markets in wholesale an retail supply would be in my view a mechanism to more ably cope with changing water availability than the current model in many countries. Naturally, there is an opposite view that argues for state control, centrally planned investment and various issues relating to what people view as social justice. Very much the situation here in Thailand.

To me, while there is such acrimony about the concept of climate change then developing real solutions to respond to the issues is difficult. It will be at the international events where solutions are tested and results communicated. When did being ideological mean closing yourself off to any other perspective?

[RickBradford]

When did being ideological mean closing yourself off to any other perspective?

One of the most obvious examples is the UN and EU officials, NGOs, governments scientists, academics and innumerable politicians stating repeatedly, starting 25 years ago: "The science is settled. The debate is over."

How's that for a closed perspective?

That, of course, is "liberal"-speak for: "We cannot tolerate dissent of any kind, and so we are determined to muzzle all dissidents."

If anyone is brave enough to suggest that maybe the science is not settled, and that a debate about both science and policy might be valuable, they are branded a denier, a flat-Earther, a crackpot, a nutjob, a headless chicken, a traitor, a paid fossil-fuel shill.

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007)

"The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist." - Charles Larson, American University (2013)

"Clouds of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. Once again, world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate. Yet today the evidence is as clear as the sounds of glass shattering in Berlin." - Al Gore

“Not long ago to question multiculturalism…. risked being branded racists and pushed into the 'loathsome corner' with pedophiles and climate change deniers“ - BBC

"Giving in to the forces of low ambition would be an act of climate appeasement. This is our Munich moment." - Chris Huhne, U.K. Energy and Climate Change Minister (2011)

"Those who abjure global warming are not skeptics; they are deniers. To call them skeptics is to debase language as much as to call the Ku Klux Klan "prejudiced," Holocaust deniers "biased," or Flat-Earthers "mistaken." - James Powell, National Physical Science Consortium (2012)

(On media balance regarding climate change) "Would the media insist on having a Holocaust-denier to balance any report about the Second World War?" - Caroline Lucas, U.K. Green Party MP (2007)

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.” Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE).

No, I don't agree that these are the people best placed to deal with the issue.

[RickBradford]

And another leading "liberal" discusses climate change with that openness and tolerance we have come to expect:

This time it is US Secretary of State John Kerry, on people who don’t think that global warming is a crisis:

“President… Obama and I believe very deeply that we do not have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”

[Tep]

When did being ideological mean closing yourself off to any other perspective?

One of the most obvious examples is the UN and EU officials, NGOs, governments scientists, academics and innumerable politicians stating repeatedly, starting 25 years ago: "The science is settled. The debate is over."

How's that for a closed perspective?

That, of course, is "liberal"-speak for: "We cannot tolerate dissent of any kind, and so we are determined to muzzle all dissidents."

If anyone is brave enough to suggest that maybe the science is not settled, and that a debate about both science and policy might be valuable, they are branded a denier, a flat-Earther, a crackpot, a nutjob, a headless chicken, a traitor, a paid fossil-fuel shill.

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007)

"The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist." - Charles Larson, American University (2013)

"Clouds of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. Once again, world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate. Yet today the evidence is as clear as the sounds of glass shattering in Berlin." - Al Gore

“Not long ago to question multiculturalism…. risked being branded racists and pushed into the 'loathsome corner' with pedophiles and climate change deniers“ - BBC

"Giving in to the forces of low ambition would be an act of climate appeasement. This is our Munich moment." - Chris Huhne, U.K. Energy and Climate Change Minister (2011)

"Those who abjure global warming are not skeptics; they are deniers. To call them skeptics is to debase language as much as to call the Ku Klux Klan "prejudiced," Holocaust deniers "biased," or Flat-Earthers "mistaken." - James Powell, National Physical Science Consortium (2012)

(On media balance regarding climate change) "Would the media insist on having a Holocaust-denier to balance any report about the Second World War?" - Caroline Lucas, U.K. Green Party MP (2007)

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.” Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE).

No, I don't agree that these are the people best placed to deal with the issue.

A boor makes boorish comments. A populist makes a populist comment. So you dismiss an entire movement? How many people saying the same thing will it take for you to accept reality?

I have dealt with ACORE in my work and other US agencies. Americans have a particular response to power that is different from other cultures. Particularly when that also includes the academic world. If you have valid arguments then you have to be taken seriously even by the boors.

[RickBradford]

How many people saying the same thing will it take for you to accept reality?

Ah, the mask drops, as it was eventually bound to, and the true voice of the "liberal" is heard loud and clear.

I disagree with you, so you brand me as someone who cannot "accept reality".

Enough said.

[Somtamme]

Some people will always try to deny something they do not want to believe in, for whatever reason. This is a normal condition.

However, we live in a democratic society, where the qualified opinion counts. The findings of the IPCC form this qualified opinion, and which needs to be acted on by us all in a fair and equitable way. It is this last point which is the stumbling block and where politics gets involved. Because it involves us all, it needs a strong United Nations to form the direction for other nations to follow.

However, for those that doubt the science, it should be recognised that all the molecules with global warming potentials have a physical chemistry that allows these molecules to absorb energy in the infra red spectrum. So it would follow that a with a higher concentration of these gases in the atmosphere will come with it, an atmosphere with more absorbed energy.

[RickBradford]

The findings of the IPCC form this qualified opinion, and which needs to be acted on by us all in a fair and equitable way.

The key estimate of the latest IPCC report (AR5), is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause a temperature rise of between 1.5C and 4.5C, which is less than they earlier predicted. And with 18 years of flat temperatures to look back on, the upper end of that prediction looks increasingly unlikely.

It makes it very difficult to formulate a fair and equitable policy response with a 3-to-1 uncertainty bar to deal with.

Which is why the single narrow policy response from the bureaucrats -- namely an all-out war on fossil fuels -- promises to be neither fail nor equitable. Nor sensible.

Notes:

* Many scientists believe the climate sensitivity to CO2 to be lower; a new paper suggests 1.05C to 4.05C

* The time of doubled CO2 (from the pre-industrial 280ppm) to 560ppm is unlikely to occur before 2100, according to IPCC

[Tep]

How many people saying the same thing will it take for you to accept reality?

Ah, the mask drops, as it was eventually bound to, and the true voice of the "liberal" is heard loud and clear.

I disagree with you, so you brand me as someone who cannot "accept reality".

Enough said.

The question was not a debating tactic. It was a genuine (if irrelevant) question inspired by the long list of people who in your mind made objectionable or buffoonish comments. If it upset you, then I will withdraw it. FYI though, calling a non American a liberal is pretty much water of a duck's back. And I thought the post to which you referred showed that on micro-economic issues, I don't bat for that team (but on macro-economic issues I do).

I will assume you will be the last person on earth remaining in some not too distant future holding onto your view!

[chuckd]

It would seem the weather doesn't want to cooperate with the warmists either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 27, 2014

NOAA – 1695 Low Max Records Broken or Tied From Sept 11 to Sept 20. One record broken by 25F

1695 Low Max Records Broken or Tied From Sept 11 to Sept 20 according to the NOAA.

A “Low Max” means that the maximum temperatures for the day was the lowest it has ever been. This indicates daytime cooling.

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/noaa-1695-low-max-records-broken-or-tied-from-sept-11-to-sept-20-one-record-broken-by-25f/

[RickBradford]

@tep

Regarding your inquiry: "How many people saying the same thing will it take for you to accept reality?", I would be happy to try to answer it if you could clarify the question slightly.

Who are all these "people" (journalists? politicians? climate change protesters? bureaucrats? scientists?) and what exactly is this "same thing" they are saying which has such a self-evident reality?

I will assume you will be the last person on earth remaining in some not too distant future holding onto your view!

Is it your opinion, then, that the only people who stick to their views are right-wing ideologues (as you have characterized me), and that "liberals" such as yourself have developed freedom from such things as ideology?

This is not a debating point, but a genuine (if irrelevant) question.

[meand]

Some people will always try to deny something they do not want to believe in, for whatever reason. This is a normal condition.

However, we live in a democratic society, where the qualified opinion counts. The findings of the IPCC form this qualified opinion, and which needs to be acted on by us all in a fair and equitable way. It is this last point which is the stumbling block and where politics gets involved. Because it involves us all, it needs a strong United Nations to form the direction for other nations to follow.

However, for those that doubt the science, it should be recognised that all the molecules with global warming potentials have a physical chemistry that allows these molecules to absorb energy in the infra red spectrum. So it would follow that a with a higher concentration of these gases in the atmosphere will come with it, an atmosphere with more absorbed energy.

Read through this and tell me if it does not explain the behavior we see today pretty much dead on the money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Discourse with these people is totally fruitless, they'll just stay in their little shell no matter what science says. And meanwhile, if they get sick, they run to science (doctors) to get well.

The solution is not to give them the time of day, as their opinions mean nothing effectively. And the more they talk, the more they expose their own inner inadequacies.

Edited September 28, 2014 by meand

[chuckd]

"inner inadequacies"

[meand]

Groupthink explained for those interested. Every piece of the puzzle falls into place considering this explanation.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach, and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory,[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[2][3]

Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of conservatives versus liberals,[4] or the solitary nature of introverts.[5] However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and thus is perhaps better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Edited September 28, 2014 by meand

[RickBradford]

^^^

Thanks for the informative post.

It sums up the global warming movement to a T.

[Somtamme]

The problem with the denial argument, is it goes against the agreed scientific consensus. The findings of the IPCC are accepted by the United Nations which is what matters in a democratic society.

But, it is the question of what to do to reduce these emissions in an equitable way, which is the question which still remains unanswered and will be the subject of debate at upcoming global conference (Road to Paris).

It is then for Governments, public organisations to set the example for the rest of us to follow.

Those in the denial camp can still ignore, but ultimately it will become cost prohibitive to do so.

[meand]

^^^

Thanks for the informative post.

It sums up the global warming movement to a T.

Lol. Right, except our group has all the scientists on its side. You just don't seem to get it; you will go to a doctor, but wont trust a different type of scientist. In fact, you will trust every type of scientist, except this one type. You are obviously biased and led astray.

I honestly thought this groupthink theory was written FOR deniers when i first read it, but the term was coined in 1972. Somebody describing exactly how deniers behave to a tee 40 years ago, bolsters the argument further. Read some more text from Oregon State.....

Groupthink Summary:

Groupthink occurs when a homogenous highly cohesive group is so concerned with maintaining unanimity that they fail to evaluate all their alternatives and options. Groupthink members see themselves as part of an in-group working against an outgroup opposed to their goals. You can tell if a group suffers from groupthink if it:

1. overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance,
2. collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes,
3. demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders,
4. has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the facade of group unanimty is maintained, and
5. contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader by keeping information, theirs or other group members', from the leader.

Groups engaged in groupthink tend to make faulty decisions when compared to the decisions that could have been reached using a fair, open, and rational decision-making process. Groupthinking groups tend to:

1. fail to adequately determine their objectives and alternatives,
2. fail to adequately assess the risks associated with the group's decision,
3. fail to cycle through discarded alternatives to reexamine their worth after a majority of the group discarded the alternative,
4. not seek expert advice,
5. select and use only information that supports their position and conclusions, and
6. does not make contigency plans in case their decision and resulting actions fail.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/theory/grpthink.html

I mean it is just describes you all so perfect it is almost uncanny.

Edited September 28, 2014 by meand

[Ulysses G.]

It would seem the weather doesn't want to cooperate with the warmists either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 27, 2014

NOAA 1695 Low Max Records Broken or Tied From Sept 11 to Sept 20. One record broken by 25F

1695 Low Max Records Broken or Tied From Sept 11 to Sept 20 according to the NOAA.

A Low Max means that the maximum temperatures for the day was the lowest it has ever been. This indicates daytime cooling.

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/noaa-1695-low-max-records-broken-or-tied-from-sept-11-to-sept-20-one-record-broken-by-25f/

As usual, Charles Krauthammer hits the nail on the head.

I repeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

The debate is settled, asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. Climate change is a fact. Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

Edited September 28, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[RickBradford]

@meand

I can't decide if you're joking or just trolling.

Groupthink is woven through the global warming movement like a beef tapeworm through a water buffalo's intestines.

It manifests itself through the external behavior, which always falls into one of three categories:

1) Attack, belittle, abuse, and threaten

“President… Obama and I believe very deeply that we do not have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.” - US Secretary of State John Kerry

"Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned." – UK Guardian journalist George Monbiot

“An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” -- former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm

"What if I told you pedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthmatics, or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous, but there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths, distorting the science." - Robyn Williams, ABC Australia

2) Suppress

"[bBC] Journalists must resist framing the debate by putting up pro-AGW advocates against climate sceptics. Such an approach creates an impression of balance but in fact demonstrates that ‘balance is bias’ against the consensus and therefore wrong...turn the debate into a ‘morality play’….guilt is good."

"Television must report and explain the peer-reviewed consensus accurately and broadcasters must avoid the maverick and eccentric at all costs. After all, we’re dealing with the lives of our children and the future of the climate." - physicist Brian Cox

3) Exaggerate. Actually, uber-extra-hyper-exaggerate

Climate-related disasters cost the world half a trillion dollars, warns Oxfam on eve of UN Climate Summit.

"Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates [sic] into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe." - John Stokes, Canadian National

"Sir Bob Geldof: 'All humans will die before 2030'" - Daily Telegraph, on Geldof's speech at Africans For Freezing Europeans

There are literally hundreds of examples like this, and in each one you can feel the hate. They drip with it.

Every time you see ad-hominem attacks (you are stupid...), suppression (...so you are not worth debating..) and exaggeration (...when the world is doomed because of your actions), you know you are in the presence of Homo Moronicus, the Lesser-Educated Green/Left Zealot.

Like American psychology professor Irving J. Janis said: "Those indulging in group-think are liable to persuade themselves that the majority of their opponents and critics are, if not actually wicked, then at least stupid, misguided and probably self-interested."

As I said, the global warming movement to a T.

Edited September 28, 2014 by RickBradford

[Somtamme]

It would seem the weather doesn't want to cooperate with the warmists either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 27, 2014

NOAA 1695 Low Max Records Broken or Tied From Sept 11 to Sept 20. One record broken by 25F

1695 Low Max Records Broken or Tied From Sept 11 to Sept 20 according to the NOAA.

A Low Max means that the maximum temperatures for the day was the lowest it has ever been. This indicates daytime cooling.

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/noaa-1695-low-max-records-broken-or-tied-from-sept-11-to-sept-20-one-record-broken-by-25f/

As usual, Charles Krauthammer hits the nail on the head.

I repeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

The debate is settled, asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. Climate change is a fact. Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

I think your getting confused, there are on the hand predictions made by the IPCC and on the other real quantitative measurements. Yes, your correct that there may be uncertainty with modelled predictions, but this doesn't mean they're incorrect.

But what is more important, are the real measurements of the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases, changes in atmospheric pollutants, the measurements taken showing extent of ice reduction, changes to strength of ocean currents, and not least sea level rise.

Both the predictive and real help inform United Nation policy.

[Somtamme]

@ RickBradford

You question modelling scenarios, but these do come with a level of uncertainty, but your placing to much emphasis on the predictive. You need to consider real measurements and observations too..

Unfortunately, modelling also does not predict extremes, but you do not refer to this. But your argument is immaterial since the findings of the IPCC are agreed by the United Nations. The debate is now to do with, how we can reduce GHG emissions in an equitable way.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Somtamme

[chuckd]

@ RickBradford

You question modelling scenarios, but these do come with a level of uncertainty, but your placing to much emphasis on the predictive. You need to consider real measurements and observations too..

Unfortunately, modelling also does not predict extremes, but you do not refer to this. But your argument is immaterial since the findings of the IPCC are agreed by the United Nations. The debate is now to do with, how we can reduce GHG emissions in an equitable way.

Not being a climate specialist, I do have one question to ask.

If, as you claim, modelling scenarious come with a level of uncertainty, then how in the world can the "science be settled"?

The only certainty I have seen is the certainty that many of their predictions have been wrong.

[RickBradford]

If, as you claim, modelling scenarious come with a level of uncertainty, then how in the world can the "science be settled"?

Because the phrase "the science is settled" is true; not factually true, of course, but emotionally true, which is much more important and real to the Warmists and the mindless foot-soldiers who follow them.

Global warming feels to them like it ought to be true, and so most of them are able to convince themselves that it is. Whatever results the models have been programmed to show, is much more real to them than irritating details such as data and field observations. Far better to stick to the Noble Lie.

Some of them are honest enough to admit it, including EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard, who declared the actual science irrelevant.

"Let's say that science, some decades from now, said 'we were wrong, it was not about climate', would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?"

What, Connie, you mean like cutting down American forests, shipping the wood chips across the Atlantic, and burning them in one of the UK's biggest power stations because local coal is regarded as dirty? You mean like doubling the number of UK people in fuel poverty because of Green feel-good fantasies about powering advanced economies on wind and sun? You mean like scaring young children into anxiety conditions with tales of apocalyptic climate catastrophe?

You have to hand it to the Warmists; they have an abundant store of moral self-righteousness and the desire to impose on others burdensome and damaging policies which they will never have to suffer the consequences of personally.

Edited September 29, 2014 by RickBradford

[canman]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

[RickBradford]

^^^

Consensus is a funny thing; it's not strictly a scientific concept, but nobody has much of a problem with the idea of there being a consensus for the notion that 2 + 2 = 4; or that the theory of gravity is broadly correct.

The more complex an idea, the more we would expect different ideas and different viewpoints to naturally creep in, and hence less consensus. Is Chekov a better writer than Shakespeare? Is it possible to create faster-than-light particles? Will there ever be a boy born who can swim faster than a shark?

When you get to a seriously complex and hard-to-evaluate field, you therefore expect a proportionately greater diversity of opinion, and a consensus actually becomes a weakness, because it is probable there is some other factor at play. This is known as the Consensus Paradox.

And then you come to climate change, the most ornery, multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary and chaotic field out there. You would expect a huge diversity of opinion, but no, we are told ad nauseam that "97% of all scientists believe in man-made global warming", as though it were a cat-food commercial. Even Kim Jong-Il struggled to get those sort of figures.

So, something else is going on. And it doesn't take long to find out what. The paper which claimed the 97% consensus was a truly wretched piece of work created by a graduate student for her professor.

Their survey received responses from 3146 scientists, a group they selectively culled in the search for the magic number. They finally achieved that when they had chopped the responses down to 77(!) of whom 75 answered the question in the "correct" way. That's 97.4%, trimmed to 97% to cater for the less numerate members of their audience.

It's rather neat, actually. They excluded 97.5% of their sample, in order to come up with a 97.4% consensus from the ones who were left.

Welcome to post-normal science.

[Somtamme]

@ chuckd

I think you are like many others getting hung up on something you do not understand and as you put it you're not a climate specialist. As you are not a climate specialist, you are therefore not in a position to ridicule predications made by the qualified.

The level of uncertainty with the modelling is considered acceptable by the IPCC and this is what matters. All greenhouse gases will by their physical properties absorb IR energy. The greater the concentration of these gases, the more energy is in the atmosphere. The science is not up for debate, but what is, is how we all can reduce emissions in an equitable way. This is what is important and should be the focus of this thread.