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

#62
Sorry to be blunt, but I can only hope that if Skeptiko continues to post on global warming Alex will invite some of the vast majority of professional climate scientists who believe that global warming is real and serious rather than cherry-picking from the very small minority who disagree (and who often receive their funding from political and economic interests hostile to the implications of global warming). Otherwise, Skeptiko will have jumped the shark into pseudoscience by denying vast amounts of inconvenient scientific evidence.
 
S

Stephen Timmis

#63
The USA and Europe are comparable in size, but Europe has over twice the population and is culturally far more diverse. What annoys me a little is the propensity of Americans to interpret everything through the lens of their myopic division of the World into Democrats and Republicans. There are far more shades in Europe. I'm a Brit, right? We think differently from Americans, just as we do from the French, Germans, Italians, Scandinavians, Spanish and all the rest.

My views on the global warming issue have nothing to do with my political views, which can't be categorised as right or left. For the most part, I think politics stinks and my opinions of politicians of all stripes is extremely poor. Global warming is, or should be, a scientific issue, but most politicians aren't scientifically educated, so are easily led by the nose by green activists because they want to look good. They'll let it drop like a ton of bricks as soon as some semblance of sanity returns. There are signs this is starting to happen.

Americans should stop with the cultural imperialism and the projection. The world just around the corner will belong to the emerging nations, who won't be giving up their chance for industrial and economic development because of a Western fad.
Studies are being carried out in Bangladesh where they are finding that the local population of this emerging nation does not see GW and Climate Change as a fad.

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/11/1/1

The study also, impotantly tries to guage variations within society along Social Class, Age and Gender lines. Which should inform people that my comments regarding the Social Class of the viewers of the thread are not out of Order at all, but are of paramount importance in current research.
 
S

Stephen Timmis

#64
I can't tell if this is more sexist, Marxist, or atheist, but whichever it is, it shows quite a lot of built in prejudice. Regarding your comment to Enrique, please curtail your desire to write remarks of that nature.

Speaking of the assumptions you've made, you might consider me to be a bit of an anomaly then because, demographically speaking, I don't match your expectations at all. I am a white male from Minnesota, a vegan, artist, former resident of Hollywood and New York who worked in entertainment and media, currently live in a socialist country (the Netherlands), do not have a car, had long hair and am good at Yoga. However, I am a conservative (or to be pejorative, a "right-winger"), do not buy the idea of climate change based on the flaws I've seen in the model, I do accept the reality of paranormal experience, do believe in God (though not as strictly represented by come religious doctrines) but do not go to church.

In my PhD-related work I have found that it is very difficult to make behavioural predictions based on demographic data except in very narrow contexts.

AP
My questions are relevant, and are asked at the highest levels in academia

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics
 
S

Stephen Timmis

#65
I can't tell if this is more sexist, Marxist, or atheist, but whichever it is, it shows quite a lot of built in prejudice. Regarding your comment to Enrique, please curtail your desire to write remarks of that nature.

Speaking of the assumptions you've made, you might consider me to be a bit of an anomaly then because, demographically speaking, I don't match your expectations at all. I am a white male from Minnesota, a vegan, artist, former resident of Hollywood and New York who worked in entertainment and media, currently live in a socialist country (the Netherlands), do not have a car, had long hair and am good at Yoga. However, I am a conservative (or to be pejorative, a "right-winger"), do not buy the idea of climate change based on the flaws I've seen in the model, I do accept the reality of paranormal experience, do believe in God (though not as strictly represented by come religious doctrines) but do not go to church.

In my PhD-related work I have found that it is very difficult to make behavioural predictions based on demographic data except in very narrow contexts.

AP
http://theenergycollective.com/roger-pielke-jr/230251/irrelevance-climate-skeptics
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#67
As to the action/non-action... again, I agree, there seems to be a lot to sort out. I was just listening to an excellent interview on Rick's BATGAP show and the guy related a story about how his guru ran this one guy ragged with chores around the ashram. The guy complied without complaint, but wondered if he would progress given that he never had time to meditate. finally, after six year, his master said, you're done... you're karma has been burned off. he then went on to achieve success very quickly.
Beyond your important point, Alex, of being careful to equate certain policies with the more "spiritually enlightened" attitude, I think I also appreciate Rick's point of view, which unless I'm wrong is something like: a properly detached Buddhist (or generally spiritual) viewpoint does not preclude action in the world. I was reminded of something either Joseph Campbell wrote or said, or maybe the religious studies author Karen Armstrong, about Chinese or Japanese warriors who would have a metaphysical perspective where they realize it's all a cosmic "game" and within that see their opponent as an extension of themselves (the oneness) but nevertheless within that field of action act.

I do remember something similar in this passage of Campbell in the Power of Myth series that always stayed with me (especially when already pretty young I would espouse a more metaphysical perspective and be attacked for "political incorrectness" because of it). Campbell is describing a metaphysical attitude that says that the the universe and existence is joyful, it can be affirmed, even with all its horror (a more Eastern outlook), and then Bill Moyers says that if you accept that, then what's the point of doing anything - forming laws, fighting battles, etc.? And Campbell said:

That is not the necessary conclusion to draw. You could say, "I will participate in this life, I will join the army, I will go to war", and so forth... "I will participate in the game"... Heraclitus said that for God all things are good and right and just, but for man some things are right and others are not. When you are a man, you are in the field of time and decisions. One of the problems of life is to live with the realization of both terms, to say, "I know the center, and I know that good and evil are simply temporal aberrations and all that, in God's view, there is no difference."...

So Jesus says, "Judge not that you may not be judged". That is to say, put yourself back in the position of Paradise before you thought in terms of good and evil... There are two aspects to a thing of this kind. One is your judgment in the field of action, and the other is your judgment as a metaphysical observer. You can't say that there shouldn't be poisonous serpents - that's the way life is. But in the field of action, if you see a poisonous serpent about to bite somebody, you kill it. That's not saying no to the serpent, that's saying no to the situation. (Power of Myth, p. 65-66)

I could also so interpret Paul's saying: "to be in the world but not of it". To (try to) identify with the transcendent viewpoint, while living and acting in the world of duality.

What that says about CAGW I don't know. :D
 
#68
Beyond your important point, Alex, of being careful to equate certain policies with the more "spiritually enlightened" attitude, I think I also appreciate Rick's point of view, which unless I'm wrong is something like: a properly detached Buddhist (or generally spiritual) viewpoint does not preclude action in the world. I was reminded of something either Joseph Campbell wrote or said, or maybe the religious studies author Karen Armstrong, about Chinese or Japanese warriors who would have a metaphysical perspective where they realize it's all a cosmic "game" and within that see their opponent as an extension of themselves (the oneness) but nevertheless within that field of action act.

I do remember something similar in this passage of Campbell in the Power of Myth series that always stayed with me (especially when already pretty young I would espouse a more metaphysical perspective and be attacked for "political incorrectness" because of it). Campbell is describing a metaphysical attitude that says that the the universe and existence is joyful, it can be affirmed, even with all its horror (a more Eastern outlook), and then Bill Moyers says that if you accept that, then what's the point of doing anything - forming laws, fighting battles, etc.? And Campbell said:

That is not the necessary conclusion to draw. You could say, "I will participate in this life, I will join the army, I will go to war", and so forth... "I will participate in the game"... Heraclitus said that for God all things are good and right and just, but for man some things are right and others are not. When you are a man, you are in the field of time and decisions. One of the problems of life is to live with the realization of both terms, to say, "I know the center, and I know that good and evil are simply temporal aberrations and all that, in God's view, there is no difference."...

So Jesus says, "Judge not that you may not be judged". That is to say, put yourself back in the position of Paradise before you thought in terms of good and evil... There are two aspects to a thing of this kind. One is your judgment in the field of action, and the other is your judgment as a metaphysical observer. You can't say that there shouldn't be poisonous serpents - that's the way life is. But in the field of action, if you see a poisonous serpent about to bite somebody, you kill it. That's not saying no to the serpent, that's saying no to the situation. (Power of Myth, p. 65-66)

I could also so interpret Paul's saying: "to be in the world but not of it". To (try to) identify with the transcendent viewpoint, while living and acting in the world of duality.

What that says about CAGW I don't know. :D
The world has just lost one of its brightest lights with the death of Nelson Mandela. His life demonstrates that if we are not part of the solution then we are part of the problem. He also taught us that the only way forward is to make friends of our enemies.

I have learned the value of the life I've been given. So I have to value the life others have been given - other people and other species and the planet which supports our being. That makes me responsible. The question is, what am I going to do about it?
 
Last edited:
#69



FOR ANYONE INTERESTED YOU CAN PURCHASE T-SHIRTS WITH ANY OF THESE IMAGES FROM http://wattsupwiththat.com

So if you want a T-shirt, this is the place.

I also found this site: http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/ccxgglobalforum-march2013.htm

(CCXG stands for Climate Change Expert Group).

That led me to:

http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/Work-on-Climate-Change-2013-14_web.pdf

Which told me:

“ …our leaders are facing a fundamental dilemma: to get to grips with the risks
of climate change or see their ability to limit this threat slip from their hands.”
Angel Gurría
OECD Secretary-General
London, 9 October 2013


But what really pissed me off is they didn't sell a T-shirt with that on.

Jules :)
 
Last edited:
#70
Sorry to be blunt, but I can only hope that if Skeptiko continues to post on global warming Alex will invite some of the vast majority of professional climate scientists who believe that global warming is real and serious rather than cherry-picking from the very small minority who disagree (and who often receive their funding from political and economic interests hostile to the implications of global warming). Otherwise, Skeptiko will have jumped the shark into pseudoscience by denying vast amounts of inconvenient scientific evidence.
I don't know off hand if you think there is evidence for ψ or not, but if you do, you must realise that you are going against the accepted wisdom of science (trotted out over and over again).

Like me, you probably look at all the evidence for various ψ phenomena and wonder why science can be so blind.

I see huge amounts of evidence that Global Warming was wrong - in particular - the predictions for global temperature showed an ever rising curve - based on increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, but the reality has been flat for about 17 years! Flat - no warming at all! What did the climate scientists do about that? They came up with an hypothesis that the warmth had stopped going into the atmosphere and was instead going into the deep oceans, whose heat capacity means that it is impossible to measure! They also - and this was a clever trick - changed the name of the problem from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so that they could blame any freak weather on the dreaded CO2!

Imagine if Alex simply interviewed conventional neuro-scientists and psychologists about ψ - just how much information would we glean from that? Most scientists are like most people - if there are parts of their story that are really weak, they try to avoid discussing those aspects. Of course, a few very able scientists, such as Freeman Dyson, feel more able to discuss the tricky issues, and you might want to explore what he has written about Global Warming.

I'd rather Alex didn't pursue this further because it is very off-topic, but if he does, I suggest he interview the climatologist Judith Curry, or the statistician, Steve McIntyre, or Anthony Watts - a meteorologist and then interview a mainstream climate scientist and pushes them to answer the tough questions.

I am still a pretty green person, and it really hurts me to see how green ideas have been perverted in this way, so that serious issues such as the loss of rain forest are sidelined in favor of a non-issue whose ultimate purpose seems to be to make a lot of rich people much richer at the expense of the poor. Do you think the energy companies in Britain mind being forced to sell an expensive luxury product rather than cheap power? Of course they don't! Do you think the poor have the money to pay for luxury electricity - of course they don't!

David
 
#71
I don't know off hand if you think there is evidence for ψ or not, but if you do, you must realise that you are going against the accepted wisdom of science (trotted out over and over again).

Like me, you probably look at all the evidence for various ψ phenomena and wonder why science can be so blind.

I see huge amounts of evidence that Global Warming was wrong - in particular - the predictions for global temperature showed an ever rising curve - based on increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, but the reality has been flat for about 17 years! Flat - no warming at all! What did the climate scientists do about that? They came up with an hypothesis that the warmth had stopped going into the atmosphere and was instead going into the deep oceans, whose heat capacity means that it is impossible to measure! They also - and this was a clever trick - changed the name of the problem from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so that they could blame any freak weather on the dreaded CO2!

Imagine if Alex simply interviewed conventional neuro-scientists and psychologists about ψ - just how much information would we glean from that? Most scientists are like most people - if there are parts of their story that are really weak, they try to avoid discussing those aspects. Of course, a few very able scientists, such as Freeman Dyson, feel more able to discuss the tricky issues, and you might want to explore what he has written about Global Warming.

I'd rather Alex didn't pursue this further because it is very off-topic, but if he does, I suggest he interview the climatologist Judith Curry, or the statistician, Steve McIntyre, or Anthony Watts - a meteorologist and then interview a mainstream climate scientist and pushes them to answer the tough questions.

I am still a pretty green person, and it really hurts me to see how green ideas have been perverted in this way, so that serious issues such as the loss of rain forest are sidelined in favor of a non-issue whose ultimate purpose seems to be to make a lot of rich people much richer at the expense of the poor. Do you think the energy companies in Britain mind being forced to sell an expensive luxury product rather than cheap power? Of course they don't! Do you think the poor have the money to pay for luxury electricity - of course they don't!

David
The difference here is that there are two sides of the scientific argument. With Psi, there isn't. There no large body of research that shows that Psi is wrong. The mainstream science of Psi research is all fairly consistent with nothing to contradict it, apart from a few outlying pseudo skeptics. There is no anti-psi science.

The climate debate so so much more complex than the sorts of things Skeptiko normally looks at. It concerns me how some people can be so sure that they have the answer all wrapped up, and that it is really so simple. It is not.

I can't help but see parallels between the climate deniers and the psychic debunkers. I definitely think there is a place for debunking and exposing scandals. But it is wrong to only look at one side of the argument.

This is a genuine question, how many of the deniers have spent as much time looking at the mainstream climate change science as they have the debunking sites? If people have really looked at the mainstream science and found it wanting, then I'd be interested in this. Btw, I'm not just talking about the mainstream science that has been proven wrong, I'm talking about all the rest of the data (if it actually exists (i suspect it does)).
 
Last edited:
#73
Thank you for your response. It was entirely as I expected. Read the article by Willis Eschenbach that I linked to: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/
I am not referring to “almost extinct,” “on the brink of extinction,” or “reportedly extinct.” I am discussing the actual extinction of species as confirmed by the relevant authorities.
1. Golden toad: reportedly extinct: probable cause: chytrid fungus from introduced West African clawed frog.

http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/2010/03/global-warming-didnt-kill-golden-toad

2. Baiji Dolphin: reportedly extinct: probable cause: The demise of the Yangtze River dolphin has been caused by incidental capture in fisheries (getting caught in nets and hooks etc), interaction with river traffic (such as boat propeller strikes), management and development of water channels (which interrupt the animal’s movement), and environmental degradation and pollution.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2010/november/is-the-yangtze-river-dolphin-extinct86470.html

3. Hawaiian crow: not yet extinct: possible cause: avian malaria

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...umed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/hawaiian-crow

4. Pyrenean ibex: reportedly extinct. Possible cause: What caused the Pyrenean ibex's extinction remains unknown, but some hypotheses include poaching, diseases and the inability to compete with other species for food.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...umed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/pyrenean-ibex

5. Spix's McCaw: Not extinct (some exist in captivity): Possible causes: The decline of the Spix's macaw is attributed to hunting and trapping, habitat destruction and the introduction of Africanized bees, or "killer bees," which compete for nesting sites.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...esumed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/spixs-macaw

6. Liverpool pigeon: Declared extinct in 2008 (actual date of extinction unknown, may have been seen in 1928 in Tahiti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Pigeon): cause: scientists say it's likely that the species was close to extinction before European exploration began in the Pacific. The International Union for Conservation of Nature assessed the species in 2008 and declared it extinct, but the reasons for its extinction remain unkown.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...d-extinct-in-the-last-decade/liverpool-pigeon

7. African Black Rhino: feared extinct, but classified endangered: probable cause: poaching.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...t-in-the-last-decade/west-african-black-rhino

8. Black-faced honeycreeper: scientists say it "may already be extinct": possible cause: Habitat destruction and the rapid spread of disease-carrying mosquitoes are thought to be responsible for the species' decline.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...t-in-the-last-decade/black-faced-honeycreeper

9. Alatroa grebe: "declared extinct in 2010, although it might have been extinct years earlier.": possible cause: The alaotra grebe population began to decline in the 20th century because of habitat destruction and because the few remaining birds started mating with little grebes, creating a hybrid species.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...umed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/alaotra-grebe

10: Holdridge's toad: Declared extinct in 2008 because not seen since 1986: putative cause: The main cause of the toad's population decline and extinction is likely chytridiomycosis, an amphibian disease, perhaps in collaboration with the effects of climate change.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...ed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/holdridges-toad

Of the ones you mention, in only one case is "climate change" even tentatively blamed. There has been a lot of controversy about the loss of amphibian species, but the cause most probably is a chytrid fungus from introduced species, especially the African clawed frog. See:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...imate-change-and-the-case-of-the-golden-toad/


My degree is in zoology, and I care about animals. I used to be a member of Greenpeace before the global warming farrago. There are lots of environmental issues, many caused by habitat loss due to land use changes, increasingly and ironically because of clearing forest land for the planting of biofuels. In other words, there are a lot of problems that have been caused by the insanity of the global warming hysteria. Others include the deleterious effects of windmills on peat lands and the slaughter of birds and bats.

Of the ten cases you mentioned, not all are officially extinct, and in none of them has global warming been proven to be the proximate cause. People are simply running around waving their hands attributing anything they can think of to it, just as the black death was once attributed to unfavourable planetary conjunctions.
 
Last edited:
#74
This is a genuine question, how many of the deniers have spent as much time looking at the mainstream climate change science as they have the debunking sites?
Please be specific: what is it you think I am denying? Has the world warmed by about 0.8 deg. C since the mid-19th century? Yes. Is CO2 a so-called greenhouse gas? Yes. So what am I denying, exactly?
 
#75
Sorry to be blunt, but I can only hope that if Skeptiko continues to post on global warming Alex will invite some of the vast majority of professional climate scientists who believe that global warming is real and serious rather than cherry-picking from the very small minority who disagree (and who often receive their funding from political and economic interests hostile to the implications of global warming). Otherwise, Skeptiko will have jumped the shark into pseudoscience by denying vast amounts of inconvenient scientific evidence.
I think you have it wrong. Few climate scientists will openly stand up and challenge the so-called consensus, but that's because they're spineless cowards and want to ensure the continuation of funding. It's a situation that applies in other fields, too. If you read AR5, it is full of caveats and surprisingly tentative. What happens is that the report for policymakers is crafted and controlled by the politicos and, not to put too fine a point on it, lies through its teeth, often saying the reverse of what the scientists are claiming.

People like you, quite possibly sincere but deluded, are just the kind of folks the politicos want to manipulate. Sooner or later, you'll wake up and find out that you have been conned. It's all been down hill since Climategate. It's even beginning to break up in the mainstream media:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/sk...tion-lies-and-exploition-says-maurice-newman/
 
#76
Please be specific: what is it you think I am denying? Has the world warmed by about 0.8 deg. C since the mid-19th century? Yes. Is CO2 a so-called greenhouse gas? Yes. So what am I denying, exactly?
I was talking in a more general case. The only things I have to go on regarding your opinion is what you have denied in this thread, such as the arctic ice disappearing (where the link you gave me actually confirmed that it was). You are also denying that we are living in a mass extinction phase. Only the other day I heard a scientist who specializes in this area confirming this. He was nothing to do with climate science btw.

The thing that I find compelling is that so many scientists who study nature are seeing radical changes. They are nothing to do with climate science, so I suspect they are not biased either way, they are just reporting on what they find.
 
#78
Few climate scientists will openly stand up and challenge the so-called consensus, but that's because they're spineless cowards and want to ensure the continuation of funding.
wow, that is a sweeping generalization! How many of these people do you know, how many have you heard interviewed? How many of these peoples books have you read?

I suspect climate science is such a massive area (psi science is absolutely tiny in comparison). If you only look at the debunking it will seem huge, and that there can be nothing else, that it must all be bunk, but because climate science is so huge I personally suspect that the majority of the science is valid. Obviously, I have nothing to back this up because I have not studied this area in detail. If someone were to prove me wrong I will change my mind. But to just make sweeping generalizations based on a few scandals doesn't fill me with confidence in your arguments.
 
#79
It IS some sort of a weird cult, the way they deny or distort empirical evidence. it's cold as hell, it's getting progressively colder, still, they deny all that a grosso modo. The dude who is sitting in his ship, trapped in the ice whose existence he is denying, tweeted yesterday "it's so warm it's raining"…. Amazing…. http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2014/01/02/storm-may-bring-up-to-foot-snow-in-northeast/
really? you're bring up Fox news. A story about a boat being trapped in some ice, to show that the ice hasn't been reducing for the last 30 years? A few storms counters 30 years of data? And you say Scientific America isn't worth considering?

I'm out of here.
 
#80
I was talking in a more general case. The only things I have to go on regarding your opinion is what you have denied in this thread, such as the arctic ice disappearing (where the link you gave me actually confirmed that it was). You are also denying that we are living in a mass extinction phase. Only the other day I heard a scientist who specializes in this area confirming this. He was nothing to do with climate science btw.

The thing that I find compelling is that so many scientists who study nature are seeing radical changes. They are nothing to do with climate science, so I suspect they are not biased either way, they are just reporting on what they find.
The link I gave proved no such thing. It showed recovery in the Arctic and expansion in the Antarctic. Nor do I deny that some species are in danger and a few may have gone extinct. I challenge the opinion that there is a "mass extinction event" that is caused by anthropogenic global warming. Much more of an issue in extinctions are other anthropogenic influences like the introduction of foreign species, poaching, forest clearance and genuine causes of pollution. I'm a strong environmentalist: I just don't believe that AGW is a serious issue because the evidence varies from tenuous to fraudulent. While we focus on AGW, genuine anthropogenic issues are being ignored and in some cases exacerbated.

Climate scientists have sold out their integrity because they are afraid to speak out against the way their actual views are represented: afraid to lose their funding. The views of a few extremists go largely unchallenged; all that needs to happen for evil to prevail is that good men say nothing. It is a scientific issue, and in science, there can be differences of opinion: or at least, that is how it once was. But these days, science has descended into dogmatism. It's not just the case for AGW: it's also happening in the AIDS controversy (where dissenters also get labelled "deniers"), cosmology, and, of course, in psi research, which is labelled "woo-woo".

WTF is a word like "denier" doing being bandied about by ideologues, who for the most part have degrees in the arts and humanities? It's no different than the hysterics of the middle ages, where the buzz word was "heretic". I'm not a white, middle-class American conservative: I don't hold the opinions I do because I'm a right-wing nutjob (or a left-wing nutjob for that matter). I hold them because I've spent four years researching the issue; before that, I more or less accepted the propaganda. I mean, who could have imagined that it was mass hysteria? It seemed so unlikely, but what can I say? That's the way it actually is.

THE key issue is feedback and the climate sensitivity to increasing anthropogenic CO2. The models don't model all the key parameters: if you don't know enough about, say, clouds and tell the models more or less to ignore them, it's hardly surprising if they ignore them and come up with predictions that have been falsified by empirical observations. The climate models are zombies that won't die because if they die, climate scientists will be out of a job. The IPCC was established not to learn more about climate, but to promulgate a view that had been decided upon at the outset, hence the politicking that goes on when the reports for policymakers are prepared.

Inexorably, the emperor is being shown to be naked. It's only a matter of time now. In due course, the CAGW issue will come to be seen as the biggest "scientific" boondoggle ever: much worse than Lysenkoism was in Russia. At that time, the costs will be counted: not just in terms of money, but human misery.
 
Top