Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

Is the 'unseasonable' extremes in weather patterns etc 'no evidence' of climate sensitivity? The question is - is human activity a factor or is that human hubris to think we have an effect on the planet? Or is it just part of the planetary-cycle so 'suck it up'?
We are enjoying a abnormally stable climate compared to geological history.
True, if you broaden the statistical catchment, we have enjoyed a 10,000 yr period of climate stability. But this does not 'prove' that a period of climate instability is not influenced by modern human influence.
the human species has lived though far more extremes than we personally have experienced.
And population numbers have been 'kept in check'; some species may not have survived due to loss of ice age conditions. again, this doesn't mean the very recent last few 100 years of our modern lifestyle is not relevant.
This whole 2030 agenda stinks of an attempt for a vast distribution of wealth, and yet more control from elite factions over the peasants.
No doubt, elitist greed and self-interest always trumps selfless consideration, in our culture.
I personally don't know a single person who is concerned.
Most people I know have noticed weather changes and are concerned, altho on a scale from mildly desultory to highly alarmed. It is personal.
So we should plead to the government to impose more restrictions on us and save us?
I don't actually believe world governments give a flying fck about the earth, her species and most humans, but without imposing legislation it's the usual free-for-all called 'economic rationalism'. Which is why I agree
It is us as individuals who have to change.
There's a joke.."Who wants change? - we do! Who wants to change? - silence.."
 
Is the 'unseasonable' extremes in weather patterns etc 'no evidence' of climate sensitivity?
No, climate sensitivity is not used in that context. climate sensitivity refers directly to Co2 warming. These so called unseasonable events have always occurred. In fact hurricane activity has reduced in the face of the junk science. Death rates from natural disasters have declined dramatically despite population growth.
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

The question is - is human activity a factor or is that human hubris to think we have an effect on the planet? Or is it just part of the planetary-cycle so 'suck it up'?
"Have an effect on the planet" is a broad generalization. Of course we do. And this is why this Co2 thing is so ludicrous, we have much bigger environmental issues that are being drowned out by this nonsense.

True, if you broaden the statistical catchment, we have enjoyed a 10,000 yr period of climate stability. But this does not 'prove' that a period of climate instability is not influenced by modern human influence.
Well it's still relatively stable in modern times, so what is to prove? a minuscule average temperature rise? How do you falsify the null hypothesis?

And population numbers have been 'kept in check'; some species may not have survived due to loss of ice age conditions. again, this doesn't mean the very recent last few 100 years of our modern lifestyle is not relevant.
You seem to again be lumping everything it one basket. Yes it is relevant. Co2 is not a pollutant and there is no evidence it is going to kill us all. It's ridiculous. A 1 degree temperature increase is nothing outside of the norm and there is no evidence to conclusively say we caused it. None. In time we will see cooling, then warming and cooling again on various timescales, you can count on it.

Most people I know have noticed weather changes and are concerned, altho on a scale from mildly desultory to highly alarmed. It is personal.
Really? How can they tell the difference between natural weather cycles such as el nino, la nino and a mere 0.2 degree temperature increase per decade? That's pretty amazing? Unless someone wants to link every weather event to this phantom, it is quite impossible to perceive such a thing. I would advise them it is psychosomatic.


Or worse. lol.

I don't actually believe world governments give a flying fck about the earth, her species and most humans, but without imposing legislation it's the usual free-for-all called 'economic rationalism'. Which is why I agree
Well, that would seem to imply there is another agenda then. Did you know that IPCC authors are politically hand picked? The selection process is done behind closed doors.

This is what it is really about, hear it from horses mouth(s). This is a dangerous game, and the danger is not the climate.
That is what you are supporting, it has nothing to do with saving the planet. As you said, they don't give a flying fu#k.

Hook, line and sinker!

There's a joke.."Who wants change? - we do! Who wants to change? - silence..
There in is our problem. On the positive side, I know more people who wish to change than believe that the sky is falling.

So you are OK with being forced to change? They have no plan for replacing the energy deficit they intend of creating. This will further divide the rich and poor. It will create a modern version of feudalism by replacing the economic system of money with one of energy.
 
Last edited:
A sane video by lead author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, and author of over 100 peer-reviewed papers on climate science, including papers on climate models, Brian Soden:

Brian Soden - Climate Feedbacks: Magnitude & Uncertainty in Global Warming (April 10, 2013)


(Cross-posted from the recent thread "Upcoming Interview With Michael Dowd About Global Warming").
 
LoneShaman, I can believe that global elites might hijack a movement, but that they could concoct the science as a hoax in itself - without the scientists themselves becoming aware of the hoax - is just not plausible. Sorry, dude, but your theory doesn't add up. There is something wrong going on with our climate, and we are the cause of it. Are miscreants going to take advantage of that? Probably. But that doesn't invalidate it.

And as for presenting a video by Andrew Bolt - good Lord, the man's political bias is well-known to all of us Australians, and you say that you, too, are Australian. Aren't you ashamed to associate yourself with such bias?

In any case, I only watched a little of the video because I don't want to give my time to partisans on the other side of the fence, but he seemed to be complaining about a paper that wasn't scientific (peer-reviewed, etc)? So, find one that is. It's not difficult!
 
LoneShaman, I can believe that global elites might hijack a movement, but that they could concoct the science as a hoax in itself - without the scientists themselves becoming aware of the hoax - is just not plausible. Sorry, dude, but your theory doesn't add up. There is something wrong going on with our climate, and we are the cause of it. Are miscreants going to take advantage of that? Probably. But that doesn't invalidate it.

And as for presenting a video by Andrew Bolt - good Lord, the man's political bias is well-known to all of us Australians, and you say that you, too, are Australian. Aren't you ashamed to associate yourself with such bias?

In any case, I only watched a little of the video because I don't want to give my time to partisans on the other side of the fence, but he seemed to be complaining about a paper that wasn't scientific (peer-reviewed, etc)? So, find one that is. It's not difficult!
Laird, it seems to me that you try to portray scientific community is something separate from the rest of society, largely immune to the faults, biases and conflicts that are rampant in a society is a whole. But this is not the case. Academic elites are the integral part of the social elites in general, science leadership and stucture is interconnected with state and corporate leadership and structure by a large network of relations, both formal and informal - and the corruption that permeates the high echelons of government and commerce taints them as well.

And scientists are also not fundamentally different from any other human beings, having to deal with material incentives and interests, ideological dedications and prejudices, personal and group sympathies and antipathies etc. as anyone else.
 
Laird, it seems to me that you try to portray scientific community is something separate from the rest of society, largely immune to the faults, biases and conflicts that are rampant in a society is a whole. But this is not the case. Academic elites are the integral part of the social elites in general, science leadership and stucture is interconnected with state and corporate leadership and structure by a large network of relations, both formal and informal - and the corruption that permeates the high echelons of government and commerce taints them as well.

And scientists are also not fundamentally different from any other human beings, having to deal with material incentives and interests, ideological dedications and prejudices, personal and group sympathies and antipathies etc. as anyone else.
A long time ago, Henry Bauer and me has made a dialogue about this very topic on Psience Quest...

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-interview-with-dr-henry-bauer-part-2
 
A long time ago, Henry Bauer and me has made a dialogue about this very topic on Psience Quest...

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-interview-with-dr-henry-bauer-part-2
Thanks for finding that, because obviously it is highly relevant to this whole discussion about CAGW. Vortex, I wonder if you would like to paste the interview in here directly, so that more people notice it and read it. I don't want to paste things from Psience Quest unless you lot are happy with that.

It is worth realising that Henry Bauer recognises a huge problem with modern science - which he defines as science done since the middle of last century, which seems approximately correct. Maybe it would help to calm this discussion by actually debating what he has to say, and then perhaps returning to 'climate change'.

David
 
That is what you are supporting, it has nothing to do with saving the planet.
There comes a point in an argument when you realise you're repeating yourself; when you've entered into an info-exchange 'link-war' -"I raise you a 2018 report on snowfall"; when your 'opponent' is reduced to exaggeration and/or ridicule, has made no real concession to your view and in fact re-arranges what has been said to validate their 'proof' - a small voice inside will advise, bail, it is futile.
 
There comes a point in an argument when you realise you're repeating yourself; when you've entered into an info-exchange 'link-war' -"I raise you a 2018 report on snowfall"; when your 'opponent' is reduced to exaggeration and/or ridicule, has made no real concession to your view and in fact re-arranges what has been said to validate their 'proof' - a small voice inside will advise, bail, it is futile.
Alice, please read the link that Vortex has supplied. I think it makes more sense to discuss CC from this slightly wider context.

David
 
Thanks for finding that, because obviously it is highly relevant to this whole discussion about CAGW. Vortex, I wonder if you would like to paste the interview in here directly, so that more people notice it and read it. I don't want to paste things from Psience Quest unless you lot are happy with that.

It is worth realising that Henry Bauer recognises a huge problem with modern science - which he defines as science done since the middle of last century, which seems approximately correct. Maybe it would help to calm this discussion by actually debating what he has to say, and then perhaps returning to 'climate change'.

David
If Laird and Ninshub (and Alex) - as well as Bauer himself - would agree with my full re-posting it here, I would be glad to do so.

Laird, Alex, you are here - what do you say?

Laird, will you ask Ninshub or I should contact him via Psience Quest private message?

I can contact Bauer myself, easily - we're in a correspondence for long.

And for now, here is the first part of the interview, dealing with the philosophy and methodology, rather than sociology and psychology, of science:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-interview-with-dr-henry-bauer-part-1
 
Alice, please read the link that Vortex has supplied. I think it makes more sense to discuss CC from this slightly wider context.

David
I did (most of it), I don't 'like' something unless I have read/listened to a link. It is long, but very interesting, and I think supports my comment that much 'public' discussion becomes futile when we are simply 'defending' a (necessarily limited) stance for fear of finding ourselves, what -'wrong vs right'? It can never be that simple.
[edit: I think you might advise LoneShaman to do the same]
 
Last edited:
I did (most of it), I don't 'like' something unless I have read/listened to a link. It is long, but very interesting, and I think supports my comment that much 'public' discussion becomes futile when we are simply 'defending' a (necessarily limited) stance for fear of finding ourselves, what -'wrong vs right'? It can never be that simple.
[edit: I think you might advise LoneShaman to do the same]
Well yes, the advice was meant for everyone participating in this thread - Lone Shaman included, if he hasn't read it, or maybe Henry Bauer's book already.

Since you read it, how do you think it relates to a discussion of CC?

David
 
Well yes, the advice was meant for everyone participating in this thread - Lone Shaman included, if he hasn't read it, or maybe Henry Bauer's book already.

Since you read it, how do you think it relates to a discussion of CC?

David
I will have to ponder, and get on with some work, but look forward to reading everyone's response without comment for a while :)
 
If Laird and Ninshub (and Alex) - as well as Bauer himself - would agree with my full re-posting it here, I would be glad to do so.

Laird, Alex, you are here - what do you say?
Honestly, I'm not thrilled about the idea. We have precious few original interviews on PQ - I'd prefer that we retained that content exclusively and didn't copy it around. I also see no meaningful need to reproduce it here. It's not like it's hard to access the content as it is - it's fully visible to the general public via a simple link. What's so hard about moving one's hand a few centimetres and clicking a button?

That said, the content belongs to you and Henry Bauer, and I don't see that I have any right to restrict what you do with it, so if you really want to reproduce it here, I won't try to stop you.

Laird, will you ask Ninshub or I should contact him via Psience Quest private message?
Perhaps it's best you contact him through PQ PM.
 
Honestly, I'm not thrilled about the idea. We have precious few original interviews on PQ - I'd prefer that we retained that content exclusively and didn't copy it around. I also see no meaningful need to reproduce it here. It's not like it's hard to access the content as it is - it's fully visible to the general public via a simple link. What's so hard about moving one's hand a few centimetres and clicking a button?

That said, the content belongs to you and Henry Bauer, and I don't see that I have any right to restrict what you do with it, so if you really want to reproduce it here, I won't try to stop you.



Perhaps it's best you contact him through PQ PM.
After some thought, I agree with you - I don't think it would be proper to deprive PQ of a few exclusive interviews that was made there, and no real need to repost them on Skeptiko, where we have a lot of interviews already..

So, I won't repost them here - the links are provided already in the thread, and anyone who want to aquaint oneself with them can do it easily.
 
Well yes, the advice was meant for everyone participating in this thread - Lone Shaman included, if he hasn't read it, or maybe Henry Bauer's book already.

Since you read it, how do you think it relates to a discussion of CC?

David
Here is a somewhat related view by Scott Adams
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...itual-engineering-392.4215/page-4#post-126242

Scott Adams writes in his book, "Win Bigly", that when you understand the psychology of persuasion, you are not impressed by the consensus of scientists because they are just as suceptible as ordinary people to mass delusions. According to the psychology of persuasion, mass delusion is actually the normal state of consciousness. This is particularly true for scientists studying climate change because their career and financial incentives are involved. In the following excerpt, 2-D is the normal world view and 3-D is Adam's world view that people are not rational but make decisions based on other factors and then use logic to defend their beliefs.

On top of our mass delusions, we also have junk science that is too often masquerading as the real thing. To the extent that people can't tell the difference, that too is a source of mass delusion.

In the 2-D view of the world, mass delusions are rare and newsworthy. But to trained persuaders in the third dimension, mass delusions are the norm. They are everywhere, and they influence every person. This difference in training and experience can explain why people disagree on some of the big issues of the day.

For example, consider the case of global warming. People from the 2-D world assume mass delusions are rare, and they apply that assumption to every topic. So when they notice that most scientists are on the same side, that observation is persuasive to them. A reasonable person wants to be on the same side with the smartest people who understand the topic. That makes sense, right?

But people who live in the 3-D world, where persuasion rules, can often have a different view of climate change because we see mass delusions (even among experts) as normal and routine. My starting bias for this topic is that the scientists could easily be wrong about the horrors of change, even in the context of repeated experiments and peer review. Whenever you see a situation with complicated prediction models, you also have lots of room for bias to masquerade as reason. Just tweak the assumptions and you can get any outcome you want.

Now add to that situation the fact that scientists who oppose the climate change consensus have a high degree of career and reputation risk. That's the perfect setup for a mass delusion. You only need these two conditions:

1. Complicated prediction models with lots of assumptions
2. Financial and psychological pressure to agree with the consensus

In the 2-D world, the scientific method and peer review squeeze out the bias over time. But in the 3-D world, the scientific method can't detect bias when nearly everyone including the peer reviewers shares the same mass delusion.

I'm not a scientist, and I have no way to validate the accuracy of the climate model predictions. But if the majority of experts on this topic turn out to be having a mass hallucination, I would consider that an ordinary situation. In my reality, this would be routine, if not expected, whenever there are complicated prediction models involved. That's because I see the world as bristling with mass delusions. I don't see mass delusions as rare.

When nonscientists take sides with climate scientists, they often think they are being supportive of science. The reality is that the nonscientists are not involved in science, or anything like it. They are taking the word of scientists. In the 2-D world, that makes perfect sense, because it seems as if thousands of experts can't be wrong. But in the 3-D world, I accept that the experts could be right, and perhaps they are, but it would be normal and natural in my experience if the vast majority of ciimate scientists were experiencing a shared hallucination.

To be clear, I am not saying the majority of scientists are wrong about climate science. I'm making the narrow point that it would be normal and natural for that group of people to be experiencing a mass hallucination that is consistent with their financial and psychological incentives. The scientific method and the peer-review process wouldn't necessarily catch a mass delusion during any specific window of time. With science, you never know if you are halfway to the truth or already there. Sometimes it looks the same.

Climate science is a polarizing topic (ironically). So let me just generalize the point to say that compared with the average citizen, trained persuaders are less impressed by experts.

...​
 
Last edited:
Henry Bauer writes about a number of scientific issues where there is a consensus and some extremely well qualified dissidents. I want to pick an issue other than CC to try to illustrate the problem.

In general, I will state in advance that I tend to side with the dissidents in modern science provided they have one or two well qualified people supporting their position - for me it is not about politics, whatever some may think. One reason for this, is that life is made as hard as possible for dissidents, up to and including removing their jobs. They don't take a contrarian position just for fun. Another is that if a dissident had simply made a mistake - for example, accidentally transformed (x+y)^6 into x^6+y^6 (say), someone would have pointed this out, and he would have blushed profusely and backed down. Let's just look at the HIV/AIDS controversy for a moment. Karry Mullis is an 'AIDS denier', and also holds a Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR reaction that replicates fragments of DNA so as to do other experiments on them. This was the point when he became suspicious of the consensus opinion that HIV causes AIDS in his own words:

http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html

Again everyone should at least glance at that because the discussion isn't technical, and I think taking an concrete example is better than talking generalities.

Karry Mullis' suspicions were aroused, not by some algebraic confusion, that could be resolved one way or the other given some effort, but by the fact that there was no paper out there that claimed to prove HIV causes AIDS! Now you might have thought that could be the result of some sort of oversight, but as I understand it, that is still the case! There is a lot more to this issue than that, and it is a very murky subject, but think of that as the core of the problem. I think almost everyone would agree that such a basic question should be resolved. In fact, it has been endlessly obfuscated using the consensus argument. I agree with Henry Bauer, consensuses in science are almost useless.

Proving that a virus causes a disease before you develop a treatment on a mere assumption, seems pretty basic, but this example of broken science has continued in this state for about 30 years.

You may think that the fact that some treatments seem to work to stop HIV positive people developing AIDS is, in effect a proof, or that it renderes such a proof rather irrelevant. According to HB, this isn't true, because AIDS kills by leaving the body open to a range of other infections - particularly fungal ones. The AIDS drugs just happen to be very effective against fungal infections, although nobody would use these drugs for that purpose because they are far too toxic.

Of course the consensus of scientists that say HIV causes AIDS are mainly supported directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical companies that make billions out of drugs to combat AIDS - so should we trust that consensus?

Finally, notice how easily politics could get woven into this argument. Some people might claim that trying to discredit the AIDS drugs was homophobic, or that right wingers hated to see so much money being spent on AIDS patients, who had 'obviously slept around', etc etc. All those arguments would be utterly irrelevant to the core question.

I hope that simply understanding this issue in outline will help people appreciate why breaking these issues down into politics or arguments about consensus is the wrong way to tackle them.

David
 
Last edited:
I am reposting some of what I wrote in the other thread here and adding a little more meat to it. This is only just scratching the surface. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is verifiable, it is real. It will culminate in Agenda 2030.

Did we know that Steven Rockefeller was one of the principal authors the Earth charter as part of the Rio declaration? A section of which concerned the United Nations framework on Climate Change? Go ahead look it up, it's no secret.
https://earthcharter.org/wp-content...ller-Maurice-Strong-and-the-Earth-Charter.pdf

Maurice Strong, club of Rome was the father of the UN climate process.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/29/father-of-un-climate-process-maurice-strong-dead-at-86/

The Rockefeller name is synonymous with big oil of course.

Their fingerprints are all over this movement. It goes back further than the Rio declaration of course, back to 1972 or 73 with the foundation of the trilateral omission to create a new economic order. Or further still to the club of Rome which brought the modern environmental movement in the late 60's. The trilateral commission brought us things like agenda 21 and the Earth charter. Al gore a member of the trilateral commission. I think you get the picture. This is their baby cutting it's teeth.
https://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Rockefeller-Way-Report-Final.pdf

The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan
https://www.globalresearch.ca/rockefeller-familys-covert-climate-change-plan/5678775

"They have no plan for replacing the energy deficit they intend of creating. This will further divide the rich and poor. It will create a modern version of feudalism by replacing the economic system of money with one of energy."- LoneShaman
"Energy, on the other is the driving force in an economy; money is simply its surrogate. There is surely a strong argument at this stage of human development for devising a new economic theory based on the flow of energy.'
"The First Global Revolution" - A report by the council of the club of Rome. p-99.

Here's a little more to chew on.
The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...m-an-important-history-lesson-2/#1917b64a29be

For starters, let’s flash back a few decades before there was any of that new science, and review a little history dating back to the 1970s and early 1980s when Third World countries, by force of numbers, and European socialist green parties, through powers of aggressiveness, seized control of the United Nations. They soon began calling for a New International Economic Order.

In the late 1980s, a scare based upon theoretical and primitive climate models that predicted man-made carbon emissions were causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming perfectly served these goals....
The central FCCC strategy to fight what was promoted as “anthropogenic” (man-made) climate change was brilliant…to put a value credit on cutbacks in the amounts of carbon dioxide emitted by fossil-burning industries, and then let other industries that produced amounts of CO2 emissions in excess of their allocations, purchase credits from them. In other words, they would create a trading market to buy and sell air.
Opening remarks offered by FCCC’s Environment Program Executive Director Maurice Strong who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil expressed an underlying priority very candidly: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
Whether you believe in AGW or not seems of little importance, this movement is being used to bring about a global transformation, with complete dominance of every facet of your life, dominance over industry, every product and the way it is produced, no stone will be left unturned. It is a poster child for the Hegelian dialect, thesis, antithesis and synthesis or problem, reaction and solution.
 
Last edited:
Top