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

[Michael Larkin]

To belabor the last point, if you think 97% of climate scientists could be in on a conspiracy to defraud the public, why are you on a pro-psi blog?

Pu-llease. 97% of climate scientists my arse. There are two studies that come up with this figure. One is based on a total of 79 respondents cherry-picked from a much larger sample, and the other actually showed a 0.3% acceptance of CAGW. A case of ideologues with next to no statistical expertise and even less scientific integrity.

There's no conspiracy as such: it's much more a case of the madness of crowds. If you think being a member of a pro-psi blog means one has to uncritically accept bogus statistics, then you're in the wrong place.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/02/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-sample-size-79/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

 

[Stephen Leslie]

Any claim that the consensus of climate scientists or scientists in general do not overwhelming believe global warming is simply bogus. For another line of evidence, the major professional scientific societies in the U.S. have released statements supporting global warming consensus.

For example, AAAS,
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

APS,
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

AMS,
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

From,
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

[Michael Larkin]

Michael,
If you had access to Perfect Knowledge, such that you were personally certain that our amateur concens over the possible catastrophe of global warming were completely unwarranted, would you, at that same time, be in support of increased public investment in renewable and alternative energy technologies ? Assume also that this investment could be done prudently, and had a high likelihood of success

No one has access to perfect knowledge. In that sense, everyone is an amateur. I'm not in support of solar or especially wind power as a realistic means to eliminate reliance on fossil fuels. The latter actually increases reliance on fossil fuels because of the need for fossil-fuelled backup when the wind isn't blowing. The mining of Neodynium used in windmills has deleterious environmental facts, windmills kill millions of birds and bats, destroy peat lands, and there's increasing evidence that their noise pollution is a health hazard, not to mention their effect on the beauty of natural landscapes. Subsidising them impoverishes ordinary people and puts millions in the pockets of rich land-owners.

The whole argument is that fossil fuels are bad because anthropogenic CO2 is bad. However, If it isn't, they aren't, and getting rid of them prematurely and trying to prevent emergent nations from taking advantage of their natural resources is criminal and inhuman. As long as precautions are taken to eliminate carbon particulates and other actual pollutants, the overall effect on human well-being is overwhelmingly positive.

If we stumble across some equally good and reliable source of affordable energy other than fossil fuels, it will be adopted through normal market mechanisms and there will be no need to legislate for it. If LENR turns out to be viable and affordable, for example, I'd be the first to take advantage of it.

The biggest savings in CO2, ironically, have occurred in the USA, due to fracking, which has enabled it to be the only country actually meeting its targets even though it didn't officially sign up to them. Greens are annoyed by that: there should be pain involved: some kind of punishment that would fall heaviest on those least able to afford energy. Can't have all these billions of human beings living in comfort and dignity, eh? The green movement is profoundly anti-human and hypocritical. Slowly, slowly, this is beginning to dawn on people of actual goodwill.

 

[Stephen Leslie]

Greens are annoyed by that: there should be pain involved: some kind of punishment that would fall heaviest on those least able to afford energy. Can't have all these billions of human beings living in comfort and dignity, eh?

Which Greens have actually said that? You know, the Greens don't think that way. They are Green because they are worried about the environment, not because they want to make people suffer.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Any claim that the consensus of climate scientists or scientists in general do not overwhelming believe global warming is simply bogus. For another line of evidence, the major professional scientific societies in the U.S. have released statements supporting global warming consensus...

Surprise, surprise: the scientific organisations, which would suffer if the boondoggle were exposed (through removal of funding) proclaim CAGW to be a fact. Follow the money: the corruption is blatant and shameless. It's not entirely universal, though. Ordinary members of some societies are at last fighting back against the elites that run them. The fact is, most ordinary members of scientific societies say nothing--why derail the gravy train?

All that means anything is empirically-based research. "Consensus" is a socio-political construct: it has no place in science. The fact that people use it so often only serves to illustrate how far science has strayed from its high ideals. President Eisenhower presciently saw it coming: but he wasn't heeded.

Mark my words: if it relies on consensus, it isn't science. It's politics. The louder you shout it, the more unscientific you betray yourself to be.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Which Greens have actually said that? You know, the Greens don't think that way. They are Green because they are worried about the environment, not because they want to make people suffer.

Few greens come right out and say it, but it's a natural consequence of trying to restrict CO2 production. If I removed from you today your possibility of using anything that relied on fossil fuels, you'd be dead in short order. Matter of fact, people die in their millions precisely because, in one way or another, they can't get access to sufficient fossil fuel energy or its products: which, indirectly, include things like adequate water supplies and sanitary systems, and more directly, affordable heating/cooling and transportation. It's no accident that you and I enjoy decent living standards: we do so, ultimately, because we have access to affordable energy. And all the indicators are that improved standards of living accompany environmental improvements and stop environmental destruction. Watch the video I posted in #161.

 

[Red]

Mark my words: if it relies on consensus, it isn't science. It's politics. The louder you shout it, the more unscientific you betray yourself to be.

Consensus doesn't mean it's automatically bollocks, politics can corrupt at any level of competence.
And if you're concerned about the loudest voice, maybe you should look in a mirror.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Consensus doesn't mean it's automatically bollocks, politics can corrupt at any level of competence.
And if you're concerned about the loudest voice, maybe you should look in a mirror.

Thanks for the kind words, Red. Here I am fighting off the uninformed opinions of a host of indoctrinated people and you think it is I who am trying to shout loudest. Consensus is only not bollocks in genuinely socio-political contexts. In genuinely scientific ones, it actually is bollocks. There's no consensus needed to prove the earth goes round the sun or that objects released from a height fall to earth, is there? Newton, Einstein, Feynman and the like would just laugh at the idea.

Science has to be able to accommodate differences of opinion, and can't seek to eliminate them by reaching consensus. What decides the best current hypothesis is how closely it matches empirical data, and at any time, current hypotheses can be overthrown in light of new findings. Trying to make a hypothesis true on the basis of a show of hands is profoundly unscientific, and precisely what will cause the death of science if we're not careful.

 

[Alex]

If we want to fight stupidity, we should not try to silence it; we should let it talk and to expose itself in public. Only by confronting stupidity openly and by exposing it, people can learn to be intelligent and critical.

And the most dangerous stupidity to be confronted and exposed is one's own stupidity; it can be identified in a free debate with your opponents. But, if one is totally sure that (s)he is Truly Right and there is nothing to debate anyway... well, it mean that this one is already so enlightened that no one can help. No way for us poor people to argue with omniscent Higher Beings!

dang, I wish there was a way to double-like a post :)

 

[Alex]

The biggest savings in CO2, ironically, have occurred in the USA, due to fracking, which has enabled it to be the only country actually meeting its targets even though it didn't officially sign up to them. Greens are annoyed by that: there should be pain involved: some kind of punishment that would fall heaviest on those least able to afford energy. Can't have all these billions of human beings living in comfort and dignity, eh? The green movement is profoundly anti-human and hypocritical. Slowly, slowly, this is beginning to dawn on people of actual goodwill.

interesting... can you explain. I mean, fracking is clearing something that is exposing everyone to a lot of health risks re ground water and the like, but what's the CO2 angle?

 

[Alex]

Mark my words: if it relies on consensus, it isn't science. It's politics. The louder you shout it, the more unscientific you betray yourself to be.

agreed... somewhat loose association/quote: "the more people chant about their freedom and how free they are, the more loudly I hear their chains rattling." ~ George Orwell

 

[Red]

Thanks for the kind words, Red. Here I am fighting off the uninformed opinions of a host of indoctrinated people and you think it is I who am trying to shout loudest. Consensus is only not bollocks in genuinely socio-political contexts. In genuinely scientific ones, it actually is bollocks. There's no consensus needed to prove the earth goes round the sun or that objects released from a height fall to earth, is there? Newton, Einstein, Feynman and the like would just laugh at the idea.

Actually you and your ilk have had most Americans believing that man-made climate change is something to be scoffed at (against the advice of most climate scientists). Or is it that American money and politics have you fooled ... I forget....

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Beliefs-September-2012/

Either way, I'm sure that Newton, Einstein and Feynman would be appalled at the current situation.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Wrong. Plants need more than just carbon dioxide to thrive. They need soil nutrients and sufficient water too, to start

Well of course plants need more than CO2. But other things being equal, more CO2 will lead to greater growth.

experiments with plants in natural environments does not show that they will grow much more given lots of extra CO2.

Link, please?

 

[Michael Larkin]

Actually you and your ilk have had most Americans believing that man-made climate change is something to be scoffed at (against the advice of most climate scientists).

As a lone Brit who has apparently succeeded in persuading many Americans that CAGW is overhyped, I take that as an enormous compliment. Thanks: you've made all my efforts seem so very worthwhile.

Either way, I'm sure that Newton, Einstein and Feynman would be appalled at the current situation.

Yup: at the sight of scientific institutions up to their necks in money-grubbing politics, they undoubtedly would.

 

[Stephen Leslie]

Vegetation and CO2 video:

 

[Stephen Leslie]

A highlight from http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Beliefs-September-2012/

• Americans’ belief in the reality of global warming has increased by 13 percentage points over the past two and a half years, from 57 percent in January 2010 to 70 percent in September 2012. At the same time, the number of Americans who say global warming is not happening has declined nearly by half, from 20 percent in January 2010 to only 12 percent today.

Looks like the denialists are slowly losing this war.

 

[Michael Larkin]

interesting... can you explain. I mean, fracking is clearing something that is exposing everyone to a lot of health risks re ground water and the like, but what's the CO2 angle?

Not sure what you are saying in the first bit, Alex: is it that you believe in the claims that fracking poses risks such as water pollution and earthquakes? As regards the second point about CO2, fracked gas, measure for measure, burns to produce less CO2 (30% less than oil, 45% less than coal, and it doesn't produce ash particulates either, so less pollution that way). That's how the USA has reduced its CO2 output below Kyoto targets, unlike all those others who actually signed up for them. Here's an interesting document from Richard Muller, who isn't really a GW sceptic:

http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports...riousEnvironmentalistShouldFavourFracking.pdf

 

[Stephen Leslie]

The majority of Americans believe global warming is real and that humans are causing it.

Gallup has done extensive polling on this,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161645/americans-concerns-global-warming-rise.aspx

Look at the countries which report widespread belief that humans are causing global warming,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117772/Awareness-Opinions-Global-Warming-Vary-Worldwide.aspx

S. Korea: 92%
Japan: 91%
Taiwan: 81%
These countries aren't scientific/technological slouches.

Also interesting is an up-and-coming power,
Brazil: 80%

 

[Michael Larkin]

The majority of Americans believe global warming is real and that humans are causing it.

Gallup has done extensive polling on this,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161645/americans-concerns-global-warming-rise.aspx

Look at the countries which report widespread belief that humans are causing global warming,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117772/Awareness-Opinions-Global-Warming-Vary-Worldwide.aspx

S. Korea: 92%
Japan: 91%
Taiwan: 81%
These countries aren't scientific/technological slouches.

Also interesting is an up-and-coming power,
Brazil: 80%

Again, even if the figures are true (I'll bet the questions were stacked), what the heck has belief got to do with anything? Like I said, the louder you shout consensus, the louder you proclaim your disdain for science.

 

[Stephen Leslie]

Many people don't get all their news from extremely biased websites. People such as farmers, outdoorsmen, gardeners, travelers, etc. can see the effects of global warming in their everyday lives. They see extreme weather becoming more common. They see droughts. They see all the glaciers melting. They are outdoors, seeing and observing. Their views matter too. So yes, I think these polls are relevant to the debate if you think, like you seem to do, that professional science is hopelessly corrupt and cannot be trusted.