Adams also proposes that the theater of figuring it all out be a television show, "like Celebrity Apprentice, with advocates of both sides presenting to Trump on camera."
Trump isn’t claiming to know as much as a climate change scientist. He is staking out his brand as some sort of “common sense conservative.”...Adams is saying this is like Celebrity Apprentice, but it's also like Congress, with its tedious hearings, replete with testimony dragged down by politicians doing their prepped speeches. If the Chief Executive performed his function in public, that would create some competition for Congress and force Congress to improve the entertainment value of its horrible hearings.
If you think climate change is real, you probably love that idea of proving it in public. You want the world to know what you know. And if you think climate change is a hoax, you want a chance to show the world that you are right. And news organizations would eat it up. It would be a spectacle, and in the end, the public would be better-informed.
It would be a spectacle, and in the end, the public would be better-informed.
Posts
158 comments:
Ancient Vulcan proverb, only Nixon could go to China.
I would love a public trial on climate change that went to the evidence and arguments, and didn't stop at the first turtle, which is the press reporting what the scientists "think" or the second turtle, which are the journal publishing process, which Climategate showed was corrupt, and went to at least the third turtle, which is the science in terms of measurements, and the basis of the models and a discussion of the assumptions built into the models.
I would love that so much.
No one has offered any metrics or proof for "climate change" other than the same failed projections for global warming. What Trump is more likely to do is set the stage for the climate change believers to have to cost-justify their actions and actually prove their claims. This leads them into a trap and a loss of government funding for their careerism.
"5. If Trump determines that climate change is real, he's the one person who can bring along the people who now think it's a hoax."
No, he can't.
Trump is running on Make America Great Again and global warming has nothing to do with that.
I'm only voting for Trump because Hillary is a criminal.
What Trump thinks about climate change is not important.
Wow. I get that Althouse thinks Scott Adams is some sort of magical guru, but this seems incredibly weak. So he concedes Trump doesn't know or care anything about global warming, and so people who worry about global warming should trust him because of course he will come around to their side of thinking because hey, just have faith that he will be open-minded and arrive at the same conclusions as them? Is that his serious argument?
As someone who thinks the world is probably getting gradually warmer but that it is not settled exactly why it is getting warmer and doesn't think any of the "solutions" presented by the swampies will make any difference, I don't really care what Trump thinks of that issue because he won't do anything about it either way. But Adams seems to be reaching quite a bit here, exhibiting the Tsar-worship that Russian peasants used to have--trust our great leader! Surely he will make everything right!
The oceans are rising, but to not worry, Manhattan and Washington DC will be expendable.
We may not have to saw off the eastern seaboard.
"It would be a spectacle, and in the end, the public would be better-informed."
Worked with Christians and the Lions.
I am Laslo.
"5. If Trump determines that climate change is real, he's the one person who can bring along the people who now think it's a hoax."
Yes, because that's what climate change skeptics were waiting for--a thoughtful, reasonable president to calmly and rationally show them the way.
Adams might want to switch to a non-toxic fume ink for his cartoons.
I can't believe there was a time I found Althouse's thoughts intriguing.
Now she just paraphrases what Scott Adams has to say in worship of the infallible Donald Trump.
So depressing.
"you probably love that idea of proving it in public"
I agree with a lot of what Adams said, but totally disagree with the above point. The exact opposite is true - climate change believers do not make their data and models available to others, and they shout down/threaten those with opposing viewpoints, rather than actually discussing the issue.
Is that Climate Change..or is that anthropogenic Climate change? It's so hard to tell because they continually conflate the two.
The last thing Climateistas want is to give voice and equal time to the skeptics or the Scientific Method. What part of "Census" by the political class don't you deniers get about this Theory?
Global warming is the biggest scam of all time. Anyone with half a brain and looks at it for ten minutes can see that. The scam is premised on the "fact" of a future prediction that the Earth is going to get so hot that the ice caps will melt, coastal cities will flood, etc. This is passed off as "science" even though it is based upon models that have been flat wrong for 30 years. That is what is astounding to me. Wrong for 30 years and everyone keeps on believing.
"[Brando] As someone who thinks the world is probably getting gradually warmer but that it is not settled exactly why it is getting warmer and doesn't think any of the "solutions" presented by the swampies will make any difference, I don't really care what Trump thinks of that issue because he won't do anything about it either way."
Couldn't have said it better. The fascination on Trump with Adams as proxy, seems odd.
Debating whether climate change is real is a red herring. The congress is actually debating what, if anything we should do about the threat. The only rational answer to that question is to do nothing, since by their own models, nothing that has been proposed will reduce the projected warming by a measurable amount. These so-called climate change mitigation policies will however succeed in costing us trillions of dollars and increase the power of the enforcement bureaucracies. No wonder the progressives love them so.
It would be a spectacle, and in the end, the public would be better-informed.
Why would the bold portion of that sentence have to be true? Why would you think it's even more likely to be true than not?
Why isn't "it would be a spectacle, and in the end, the public would be less well-informed" just as likely to be correct?
Your assertion seems to assume "being more entertaining" is synonymous with "informing better." I counter that in an attempt to be more entertaining the relevant parties might distort, oversimplify, and just generally ignore the known facts, meaning more people would get the message but the message would be further from the "truth." That'd result in a less-well informed public--although possibly one that FELT it knew more!
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your stated premises.
No one has offered any metrics or proof for "climate change" other than the same failed projections for global warming.
You see, but you do not observe.
On a related topic, I made a prediction a week ago that May could close with 10 straight days at/above 80, which is unusual in Madison. Alas, it didn't happen. Two days only got to 79 -- there were mid-afternoon showers (quite welcome in my garden, but I like unusual weather occurrences, so putting the kibosh on my prediction was a bummer).
(If you look in the records, 1977 is the champ -- sort of -- at this -- it was above 80 (in May!!!) from the 12th through the 30th. What an absolute bummer it must've been to hit only 75 on the 31st).
Ocean levels have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age, steadily.
Google now makes these kinds of stories hard to find by burying them. That's how Google will snuff the Enlightenment, but deciding what people should and should not know, for us. The more dependent we come on them, the worse for our future. The universities are failing us, and the left have managed to hijack the alternatives too.
Who-knew is absolutely right. In the Clean Power Plan regs the EPA actually admits that even if all of its drastic reductions in carbon emissions are met, the global temp will be reduced by 0.019 by 2100. The cost will be trillions and the benefit will be nothing. Worst deal ever.
Yes, because that's what climate change skeptics were waiting for--a thoughtful, reasonable president to calmly and rationally show them the way. - Brando
You seem like a bright guy. Show me the way.
Google now makes these kinds of stories hard to find by burying them
Whoa. The first two times I read that, I substituted in "buying" for "burying"!
I suppose it could happen in the future. The very warm future.
I suspect a greater number of people would prefer to be left alone, rather than to be more informed by the Government.
Maybe it's just me.
I am Laslo.
Evidence of the success of this strategy can be found in the Obama presidency. Just replace "climate change" with "Guantanamo".
1. Obama may say he thinks Guantanamo should be closed, but he's saying things now for the purpose of getting elected, not because he thinks he actually should, 2. Obama, concentrating on the task before him, getting elected, hasn't really thought through the problem and therefore has no real opinion on the subject, 3. If and when he gets elected, he'll use appropriate experts to get up to speed on the subject, 4. The theater of figuring it all out will be performed in front of the people, with the peaceniks paying special attention and (many of them) trusting their man Obama, 5. If Obama determines that Guantanamo can't be closed, he's the one person who can bring along the people who now think it should be.
The obvious problem is that this approach does not necessarily result in good policy. The result of the Obama performance was a spectacularly incoherent national security policy, neither principled nor realistic. It has been an exercise in cognitive dissonance encompassing the entire executive branch.
I agree with a number of the posters above. The warmists would never consent to this because there would be a decent chance that their gravy train would come to a screeching halt as a result of their scam being made public. Not only is a lot of academic careers depending on the continuation of the scam, but also a number of government careers too. And, yes, the same govt bureaucracies most dependent on its furtherance are the same ones passing the money out to the academics for research. But maybe even more important is all the money sloshing around for the well connected. We have watched as Al Gore got richer than the Clintons, and top Dems got billions in failed green loan guarantees under Obama's "porkulous" bill. Recently, it turned out that hundreds of millions of Zika money was redirected by the Obama Administration for climate change project. Keep that in mind when you are hearing about the urgent need to pass legislation for fund the fight against the virus, that things wouldn't be nearly that urgent, if they hadn't already squandered a bunch of the money they already had on climate change projects.
At the very best its very uncertain and the idea of it being "settled" is a dead give away. Only an idiot can ignore the post Ice Age warming trend and on a smaller time scale the solar cycles but the impact of man made activities is far from settled. Its not easy to understand, nor are people being honest.
David Begley said...
"5. If Trump determines that climate change is real, he's the one person who can bring along the people who now think it's a hoax."
No, he can't.
Once you see the emperor is naked, you can't get the image of his flabby ass out of your head. David is right. Trump can convince the enlightened skeptics. Climate Change is a massive hoax.
If Ali G can't pull one over on Trump, I doubt Al Gore and his 'scientific' minions will either.
It's really just a matter, on many issues, how far Trump is willing to go to broadcast truths the elite have used to temper the public. Right now it looks good as he is being treated as one who betrayed his class.
Just go along with him, otherwise he'll start doing his "You're feeling sleepy....sleepy...." shit on you.
I don't push my religion on to liberals and I wish they would stop pushing their climate change faith on to me.
"You seem like a bright guy. Show me the way."
I'm not trying to convince anyone either way--I'm a slight skeptic as to the cause of global warming but have no wish to convert anyone in either direction. But if decades of arguing past one another on environmental issues has achieved nothing more than more solid polarization, what on earth makes anyone think Trump is the one who will finally break through and win converts to the global warming alarmist side? And what on earth makes anyone think he would even want to try?
Adams's post is saying (1) Trump just says whatever he thinks will get him elected; (2) the fact that Trump knows nothing about this or many other issues shouldn't be a problem because every president learns on the job; (3) surely Trump will learn on the job that global warming is a major problem, because reasons; and (4) once Trump learns of this threat, he will use his expert persuasion tactics to convince global warming skeptics that they are completely wrong and unite with the swampies.
And Althouse seems to think this is clever analysis for some reason.
Bruce Hayden said...
The warmists would never consent to this because there would be a decent chance that their gravy train would come to a screeching halt as a result of their scam being made public.
The warmists have been trying to shut down any debate or pushback for a long time. "The Science is settled". A school board in Oregon just banned any text books hinting doubt or countering the climate hoax's narrative.
When it comes to Climate Change, there will be no debate from the left.
I suspect a greater number of people would prefer to be left alone, rather than to be more informed by the Government.
The statement in this thread that resonates the most.
And all without the Ponytail Swish (TM)
This post really reminds me of the kind of posts that were about Obama back in 2008.
Bruce Hayden:
The big money made on the CAGW scam has been made via the federal tax credits. No federal tax credits and the likes of Tesla and Solar City would never exist. Elon Musk would then only have his spaceship company and his PayPal millions.
Adams also proposes that the theater of figuring it all out be a television show, "like Celebrity Apprentice, with advocates of both sides presenting to Trump on camera."
Each side of Trump's global-warming debate should select a "project manager", who should lead his team's accomplishment of a task, such as designing the best poster about global warming.
Then, Trump should decide which poster was best.
Then, Trump should question the team that designed the worse poster. He should make the team members evaluate the project manager, and he should make the project manager evaluate his individual team members.
Finally, Trump should fire one member of the team that made the worse poster.
In the following week, the two teams can compete on other tasks, such as selling the most cookies at a scientific conference on global warming.
coupe said...
The oceans are rising, but to not worry, Manhattan and Washington DC will be expendable.
We may not have to saw off the eastern seaboard.
This depends entirely on the choice of the time scale. For over 100 years, the period covered by tidal gauges, the sea has been generally rising at about 2 mm year (or less), with absolutely no evidence of acceleration during the post 1950 period that CO2 induced global warming is thought to have occurred, by those who believe in it. Local rates on the east coast are a little higher because of settling and post glacial rebound farther north.
On shorter time scales, there are still long oscillations in the local rates due to oceanographic event, the long oscillations of the AMO and PDO, and the El Nino-La Nina events which lead to multiyear excursions above and below the median rate.
Right now Drudge is touting a story of how sea levels are declining on the east coast. It's a few years of data after a story where scientists were proclaiming "hot spots" for sea level rise on the east coast. So yeah, it's fair to debunk that.
Water doesn't pile very well.
Maybe we can apply this "analysis" to abortion. Trump clearly hasn't thought much about abortion, only saying what's necessary to get elected, but once he takes office his experts will show him that abortion is totally fine and so he can use his master persuasion to show pro-lifers that their attachment to fetuses is antiquated. Maybe he can do an "Apprentice"-like show where pro-lifers learn the error of their ways! If this doesn't solve our abortion divide, nothing will!
Brando,
"But Adams seems to be reaching quite a bit here, exhibiting the Tsar-worship that Russian peasants used to have--trust our great leader! Surely he will make everything right!"
Not that I disagree with you on your larger point, but my understanding is that the Russian aristocracy were actually more into Tsar-worship than were the peasants and serfs. For example, during the reign of Alexander I, the Russian nobility were referring to him as the "angel-incarnate," publicly proclaiming him to be at least somewhat divine (this at a time when the rest of Europe was accepting a less heavenly "divine right" of kings-- and even that was fraying). Tolstoy mocks it in War and Peace.
Long before sea level rise, the destruction and costs involved with storm surges may bankrupt most communities.
Ellis Island suffered $77 million damage in the last storm, but is bankrolled by the Treasury.
New Jersey ain't paying to keep the light on.
coupe said...
"The oceans are rising, "
Really? The NOAA just said that sea levels as measured on the east coast are falling.
Odd. Don't you think?
I wonder if our hostess has been pacing and then leading her conservative readers.
- Krumhorn
The oceans are rising, but to not worry, Manhattan and Washington DC will be expendable.
We may not have to saw off the eastern seaboard.
This is maybe why some education on this subject might be useful. Miami and New Orleans would probably have been better examples. Current elevation for DC is roughly 410 feet. Try calculating how many millennia until it is under water based on the worst case plausible estimates of sea level increases. We are probably talking well into the next little ice age. Course, I have little sympathy here, sitting right now a bit above a mile above sea level.
Of course, up until very recently, with the advent of satellite measurements, it was as easy to fudge sea level around the world as it was global temperatures. Both suffered from the problem that massive interpolation had to be utilized over very limited data sets in order to arrive at global values. Turns out the algorithms and fudging behind the massive interpolations for global temperatures has been anything except transparent, but rather a closely guarded secret of a small number of initiates. Expect that it is very similar with global sea level measurements. Why can't you just average the sea level at a few select points around the world? Because it is going up some places, and down in others.
This idea of having proponents and opponents of something thrash it out in a public way is something Scott Adams has been suggesting for a long time - way before he got the recognition he's now getting. It ain't the Federalist Papers, but it may be the best we can do in our information saturated age where celebrities get more coverage than issues.
The place where Adams's argument doesn't work for me is where he compares the Presidency to being CEO of a company, saying that you wouldn't expect a CEO to have a plan to solve all the company's problems before joining the company.
There are many companies of which one can become CEO, including ones for which one does not currently work. But to become President of the United States, you are already a citizen of the United States; it seems that you should have at least some familiarity with the country's problems and some ideas on how to solve them.
What's depressing is that Scott Adams may have a point. Trump's positions on any issue are very much a moving target. He can and has changed his mind without any kind of accountability in terms of loss of support. In fact, to his most fervent supporters this is a feature rather than a bug. But from an administrative standpoint this sort of reactive rather than active way of approaching problems will have advantages and disadvantages.
It has obviously proven to have far more advantages in campaigning. But when thinking about how a President Trump will deal with things, we can only hope that the positives will outweigh the negatives.
Current elevation for DC is roughly 410 feet
I thought DC -- National Airport, for example -- was at sea level.
Who's the Cabinet Member who jumped into the Tidal Basin?
"Not that I disagree with you on your larger point, but my understanding is that the Russian aristocracy were actually more into Tsar-worship than were the peasants and serfs."
Interesting--I seem to recall learning it was the peasants and urban lower classes who stuck with the Tsar right up until the First World War. Even when his troops fired on them in 1905 they still tried to convince themselves that the Tsar didn't know about it and would have prevented it if he had.
"Water doesn't pile very well."
But it does. Satellites map the topography of the ocean bottom by measuring the bumps and valleys of "sea level."
"The highest point in the District of Columbia is 410 feet (125 m) above sea level at Reno Reservoir in Tenleytown. The lowest point is sea level, which occurs along all of the Anacostia shore and all of the Potomac shore except the uppermost mile (the Little Falls-Chain Bridge area)."
Wikipedia
In politics you can either convince your opponents or crush them. It's pretty clear which method is in vogue, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. This theory of Adams' is wishful thinking.
"I wonder if our hostess has been pacing and then leading her conservative readers."
Excellent question.
I think the answer is no, because I don't have things I want to persuade you to do (other than use Amazon through the Althouse portal (in the sidebar).
Rusty said...Odd. Don't you think?...
It's all relative to the data you collect. I can prove that 1 + 1 is not equal to 2.
Long before you see water on your driveway, the rising sea will pollute the underground water aquifers, although this is a battle between the fracking industry on who will succeed first.
Okay, I had to look it up.
Wilbur Mills is the person I was thinking, who jumped into the Tidal Basin. Member of the House, not of the Cabinet. Key word though: Tidal Basin.
I suspect the high region is the NW corner of DC. The White House, for example, is at 95 feet ASL (unless by 'elevation' that website meant "How tall is the White House" :) )
Or, he might come to th conclusion that the whole thing is overblown and there is no real crisis to worry about.
"incredibly clever" Trolling your commenters, right?
For the benefit of those of us who prefer claims that can be refuted by reality, it would be nice if Adams, Althouse, and various fellow travelers would make a prediction about what Trump will do or say next week. After half a dozen or so correct predictions, thoughts about what Trump would do about climate change might be worth considering. For example, if Adams would predict incredibly cleverly which governor or judge Trump will incredibly cleverly attack next week, or what formerly held position he will retract, or what policy he will or will not propose after gathering "experts," that would be useful. Otherwise, who the hell knows?
You are complicit in a great deception by referring to the issue as "climate change." The climate does change and always has and no one disagrees with that. There was a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age. The issue is CAGW - catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. CAGW is the claim, embedded in various mathematical models similar to those economists use, that human activity will cause disastrous increases in global temperatures in the quite near future. This is an entirely different matter and far from universally accepted (except by those who were anti-capitalist to begin with and find this a convenient rock to throw). Treating an appreciation of climate change as though it were an endorsement of CAGW is a classic bait and switch.
On the matter of the public preferring to be left alone -
That, specifically, is why the global warming business is so pernicious. It can be, and has been, used as a justification to regulate anything at all. Any human activity can be connected to some process that affects greenhouse gas concentrations, and it usually isnt all that far removed. Anything requires more or less energy at some point.
This has already been used as justification by the EPA to regulate based on already applicable law (which was not intended for this) reinterpreted for CO2 emissions.
They can make any rule they want and enforce it as they like.
Or license exceptions as they like, for cooperative or well connected entities. The power grab is unprecedented.
This is the most direct route to unlimited, uncontrollable bureaucratic power in the modern world, the door to totalitarianism.
Only an idiot can ignore the post Ice Age warming trend
What post Ice Age? We're still in an ice age. All of human history has occurred during an interglacial period of the current ice age. There was once a mile of ice on Chicago, and there will be again.
Nonapod,
"It has obviously proven to have far more advantages in campaigning. But when thinking about how a President Trump will deal with things, we can only hope that the positives will outweigh the negatives."
I will provide you with this written statement from a previous Presidential candidate: "I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them."
This is where we are these days, Republicans and Democrats alike, and if Trump gets elected, I'm guessing he'll disappoint more or less as many former supporters as Obama did with, say, drones, domestic spying, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and so on and so on. Note that my observing the pheonmena does not mean that I approve of it nor that I disapprove of those (and other issues) which he "sold out" his supposed base.
Coupe wrote:
The oceans are rising, but to not worry, Manhattan and Washington DC will be expendable.
We may not have to saw off the eastern seaboard.
are you predicting som day after tomorrow scenario where Manhattan gets flooded the day after tomorrow? You sound like an extremist. We've also been hearing about how California was going to be destroyed by an earthquake for decades. That's actually a more realistic scenario, but event there, it's been talked about for decades. How many people have moved out of california beciase of the possibility of an earthquake? Like seven?
If the oceans are even rising at all its not to the extent where it will make Mnhattan or DC expendable. If the waters were to rise and make DC expendable, well that's where all the politicians are. So, it would have the great effect of sweeping the slate clean. Plus, if a city is flooded less greenhouse gases will be emitted from it which might help global warming, yes? Britain has a futile gesture where they turn off all electricity for an hour to combat gw. It's completely for virtue signaling and does absolutely nothing to actually fight global warming. But it makes them feel good. If DC were flooded it would be like 24 of those a day. Which adds up.
So, would DC flooding really be so bad?
I read this differently than you did professor.
I saw this as, Adams knows that Democrats don't care if people lie. For example, they knew Obama would evolve on homosex institutionalized and codified into our society through the redefinition of words.
So what he is doing here is persuading Democrats, "Hey, Trump is a liar, just like Obama!" A liar in a good way, I suppose he might add.
And it seems to be working on people like you.
I, on the other hand, take Trump at his word.
Fanne Foxe was the stripper/close friend of Wilbur Mills. It was she who jumped into the Tidal Basin.
Full disclosure: I am not Wilbur Mills.
Original Mike said...
"Water doesn't pile very well."
But it does. Satellites map the topography of the ocean bottom by measuring the bumps and valleys of "sea level."
As a PhD oceanographer I know all about it. Winds and density difference cause differences in sea heights too, just not a lot. It takes work to push and maintain water above the level of the geoid. When the work stops, the water runs back into the hole. The whole system leads to the world wide global current circulation pattern. I said it doesn't pile well, not that it doesn't pile at all.
Actually, the example you give, the differences in height caused by the differences in the strength of gravity are not really differences in sea level, because the geoid is defined as the theoretical sea level under under the influence of gravity, but without the confounding effects of currents winds tides etc.
@buwaya Putin: Yep. Even if global warming is true, the harm it will cause pales besides that of all an pervasive government.
The amount of power that global warming gives the executive departments of the US government, and of State governments as well - they can thereby regulate anything in the economy at all, at whim, with no effective democratic political recourse, no legal recourse, no new legislation required.
If you want a reason to vote against H Clinton, here is the really big one. She and her allied interest group are committed to this. It really means the end of democracy, due process, a free economy, pretty much everything really.
Brando,
"Interesting--I seem to recall learning it was the peasants and urban lower classes who stuck with the Tsar right up until the First World War. Even when his troops fired on them in 1905 they still tried to convince themselves that the Tsar didn't know about it and would have prevented it if he had."
Ah, that comes about a hundred years later and it almost certainly would have happened in some places, yes. But during the February Revolution, the Tsar's orders to the Army to disperse the protesting Petrograd workers generally went unheeded by the Imperial Guard (which had poor leadership and severely low discipline and morale). Thousands of troops flat out mutinied and joined the people in their protests (and targeting of loyalist police), and just one week later, Tsar Nicholas II became just plain Nicholas Romanov, with liberal aristocrats taking power in a provisional government. The bloody revolution followed, once Lenin's Socialists made it all about them, rejected any power-sharing and began a campaign of ultra-violence.
@Fritz: PhD oceanographer? So when you say "For over 100 years, the period covered by tidal gauges, the sea has been generally rising at about 2 mm year (or less), with absolutely no evidence of acceleration during the post 1950 period that CO2 induced global warming is thought to have occurred..." you know what you're talking about? That would be good to know, because you hear so much crap on this topic.
I'm not trying to convince anyone either way--I'm a slight skeptic as to the cause of global warming but have no wish to convert anyone in either direction.
Well, maybe it was just a tone misfire then. I really would like to hear the warmie that can answer the fundamental objections to the whole "model driven science" charade. I was hoping maybe it was you who could make the cogent argument for the warmies.
I would love to hear any argument that goes beyond the only strong argument that the warmies have, which is that we can't take the risk, even though, as has been pointed out, not emitting vast quantities of CO2 has risks as well, as anybody who lives, like I do, where glaciers were once a mile thick and only a very small number of the local mountains peeked (peaked?) through them, can attest.
The data inputs into already rigged models based on fantasy feedback loops has had to be altered until it made something that can be predicted to happen later. Later came and nothing happened.
CO2 is of course a valuable trace gas and the best fertilizer to make plants grow. It has ZERO affect on Climate at all period. And the Lying Hoax creators of a fake Science have known that all along.
Why those who think climate change is a terrible threat should hope Trump wins the presidency.
No, it's why those who think human influence on the climate is a terrible threat (also known as Marxists who think they've found another way to enact their dreams of societal destruction into law).
"I really would like to hear the warmie that can answer the fundamental objections to the whole "model driven science" charade. I was hoping maybe it was you who could make the cogent argument for the warmies."
Yeah, I'm not the one to make that argument--I don't believe anyone has proven that it is human activity and no other factor that is causing climate change. I don't really see how it could be proved, since we cannot eliminate other variables. I'm all for increased energy efficiency, but that's more to eliminate localized pollution and protect against supply shortages than this idea that we can stop the world from getting warmer overall.
traditionalguy said...
CO2 is of course a valuable trace gas and the best fertilizer to make plants grow. It has ZERO affect on Climate at all period. And the Lying Hoax creators of a fake Science have known that all along.
5/31/16, 10:32 AM
Indeed. It's amazing what AGW advoates can attribute to a gas that makes up .0004% of our atmosphere and just that little amount we have is essential to life on this planet.
@Fritz what you are saying the seal level is rising more or less about 2mm per year over the last one hundred years. I live in Miami and my home is on the water but it is eight feet above sea level so therefore even if I could put my house into a generation skipping trust that lasts for three hundred and sixty years neither I or my posterity need not worry about having the house submerged. Very comforting.
Yesterday Atlanta was one degree below the record for the same date. Global Warming!!
The recorded high was in 1890.
Global Warming sucked for Atlantis.
I am Laslo.
cubanbob said...
@Fritz what you are saying the seal level is rising more or less about 2mm per year over the last one hundred years. I live in Miami and my home is on the water but it is eight feet above sea level so therefore even if I could put my house into a generation skipping trust that lasts for three hundred and sixty years neither I or my posterity need not worry about having the house submerged. Very comforting.
There's still the small matter of storm surge. Don't get too complacent.
Original Mike said...
@Fritz: PhD oceanographer? So when you say "For over 100 years, the period covered by tidal gauges, the sea has been generally rising at about 2 mm year (or less), with absolutely no evidence of acceleration during the post 1950 period that CO2 induced global warming is thought to have occurred..." you know what you're talking about? That would be good to know, because you hear so much crap on this topic.
I regret diving into credentialism but I got pissed off. I think I know what I'm talking about, but don't we all? If you want to start to see the truth of sea level rise claims, I suggest you go to this NOAA site, not one of theirs dedicated to advancing the agenda:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm
Try a few around the nation. I suggest Baltimore MD and the Battery NY to start as two of the longer records. Remember, even these records are affected by the rising or settling of the land that the gauge is on.
It's over the top to say that CO2 has zero effect on the climate and just gives the warmies a cheap but meaninglessness victory.
There's no adult peer review in Climate Science.
The answer is that we don't know and can't know what's going on. The system is too complicated to know about.
That doesn't stop climate scientists. Control and funding. That's a result from sociology and management science.
Did you know that a trend isn't a result from data but from a random choice in curve fitting?
Given that a trend is what you're looking for, then you get the amount of trend from the data.
But there may be no trend in the data at all. It may be a long cycle.
If you fit for a long cycle instead, you get no trend and one long cycle.
They both look the same in the data.
So if somebody tells you about the temperature trend, he's unaware of what he's talking about.
He's talking about a choice made before the data came in. It's data-free. He found a trend because he looked for a trend instead of a cycle.
Looking for a trend is a convention in curve fitting, not a fact in the data.
That's called the uncertainty principle. The product of frequency uncertainty and time uncertainty can't be reduced to zero. That's a mathematical fact before it's a quantum mechanical fact. But who will understand the argument in that form.
I'm only voting for Trump because Hillary is a criminal.
So much this. Missouri has an open primary (which is stupid, but there you have it). In 2008, I voted for Obama to try and stop her. She's like a rhino without enough tranq....just keeps coming.
WisRich, 10:39:
"It's amazing what AGW advoates can attribute to a gas that makes up .0004% of our atmosphere and just that little amount we have is essential to life on this planet."
Minor correction: 400 ppm = 0.000400 [the fraction] = 0.04%.
You're right that this is a very small fraction, but it's worth remembering that pretty much all the rest of dry air, N2, O2 and Ar, cannot absorb infrared radiation. You can't dismiss that tiny fraction without knowing how much it's doing.
The better objection is that most air isn't dry, that water can either absorb or reflect IR depending on whether it's vapor or droplets, and that the alarmists should get back to us when they understand clouds. (There are some pretty good disagreements as to whether warming causes drought or flood on balance, so they split the difference and yell, Climate change! every time either one happens.)
Laslo Spatula said...
Global Warming sucked for Atlantis.
At last a real clue! Atlantis must have invented the term "global warming." But they probably meant "global drowning."
I am not Laslo.
I hope we get up to 800ppm CO2, than Canada and Siberia are opened up to farming! Plants love CO2. In fact getting it up to 1600ppm is even better.
Adams gets it wrong in his belief that Trump isn't really a AGW skeptic. Trump is generally skeptical of most media-driven conventional wisdom. Rightly so, IMHO. Adams also gets it wrong in thinking post-AGW debate results would convince Trump and then the skeptics would fall into line. They won't ... because science is on their side as time will eventually tell.
But Adams idea of putting the whole thing into a vast, media-covered debate is a glorious idea. With Obama, no debate was allowed: "The science is settled," he affirmed in his absolute ignorance. If we get this debate, it will be like Trump taking on those 16 best-qualified candidates ever and destroying them one by one. Debate will RUIN the AGW cause (and it is a cause). And its proponents know and fear this.
But Adams could be right, it could happen, and what a glorious day it will be. Maybe this reality TV show concept has some merit after all.
"Wow. I get that Althouse thinks Scott Adams is some sort of magical guru"
"Now she just paraphrases what Scott Adams has to say in worship of the infallible Donald Trump."
Indeed, as she needs a new tag ~ My everlasting Scott Adams fetish.
"I wonder if our hostess has been pacing and then leading her conservative readers."
Re: Trump, she's basically, with very few con exceptions, preaching to the choir ie apologies to AC/DC She told me to come but I was already there.
Again, she really only cares about blog hits and doesn't need the additional $$$, so her Amazon portal is more for adulation than cash.
She's just happy her 95/5 con majority continue to be loyal/avid readers.
>
Supply and demand ...
Fritz: thank you for nailing the ocean issue. I look for evidence from the real world, and I was interested to see NOAA's website provide details on the recent FALL in sea level at The Battery NYC and Washington DC. The NOAA page I saw also talked bravely about the long-term trend (which is slightly under 3 mm/year since well before the global warming hypothesis says we humans could have had a real effect) but the interesting part was the period 2009-2015 when The Battery apparently showed a drop in sea level of about 10 mm/year. Talk about falsifying the hypothesis, or at least putting the burden back on the warmists.
I hope a lot of people check this out. It beats the high level ranting we mostly see.
Criticism of Althouse's fascination with Scott Adams miss the mark. Adams is fascinating, not because he's right all the time, but because he speaks outside the media Cone of Acceptance. He is one of the only voices that examines the Trump phenomenon through a different filter than the one-size-fits-all media narrative. The fact that he's getting traction -- and it extends far beyond Althouse, as Adams now shows up on CNN, Bill Mahrer, Fox, and others -- shows how starved we are for something other than the Media message.
Keep it up, Althouse. I enjoy Adams' take and your take on him ... and I know I'm not alone.
Google now makes these kinds of stories hard to find by burying them.
While I don't doubt there's some machinations involved, I don't see it because of this example. I popped in "sea levels" and "little ice age" and it was on the first page of hits.
@Fritz said: "I regret diving into credentialism but I got pissed off."
I appreciate it, actually. There's so much crap out there (sea level is rising, sea level isn't rising, sea level is/isn't rising but...) that it helps to know people's credentials. It's not a guarantee, but it's useful data.
JPS: "WisRich, 10:39:
"It's amazing what AGW advoates can attribute to a gas that makes up .0004% of our atmosphere and just that little amount we have is essential to life on this planet."
Minor correction: 400 ppm = 0.000400 [the fraction] = 0.04%.
You're right that this is a very small fraction…The better objection is that most air isn't dry, that water can either absorb or reflect IR depending on whether it's vapor or droplets, and that the alarmists should get back to us when they understand clouds. (There are some pretty good disagreements as to whether warming causes drought or flood on balance, so they split the difference and yell, Climate change! every time either one happens.)"
On information and belief, water vapor in the atmosphere accounts for about 95% of its heat capacity. It totally dwarfs CO2 and other GHG. And the weird thing about water vapor? It enters and leaves the atmosphere at a rate thousands (millions?) of times faster than the other GHGs. Every time a cloud forms, every time the rain comes: massive instant changes. With massive instant negative feedback on the overall energy picture. Warming the planet gets harder and harder as you approach 30 C.
I defer now to those who study this for real, but the foregoing is what I've learned from serious climate sites here on the Interwebz.
Fritz said...
cubanbob said...
@Fritz what you are saying the seal level is rising more or less about 2mm per year over the last one hundred years. I live in Miami and my home is on the water but it is eight feet above sea level so therefore even if I could put my house into a generation skipping trust that lasts for three hundred and sixty years neither I or my posterity need not worry about having the house submerged. Very comforting.
There's still the small matter of storm surge. Don't get too complacent.
5/31/16, 10:53 AM"
Not compacent in the least bit, that's why the house is eight feet above flood. Going to take a pretty nasty surge to get water in the house. Hurricanes and related storm surges are a weather fear. And as we are constantly reminded weather isn't climate. Plus any storm large enough to be than risky is one I'm out of my house.
but the interesting part was the period 2009-2015 when The Battery apparently showed a drop in sea level of about 10 mm/year.
One can see similar short-term trends throughout the tide cycle at Battery -- there's a great one centered on 1980, for example. A short-sighted person back in 1983ish could have decided that the seas were no longer rising. Yet here we are 30+ years later, and you know what? They continue to rise, in fits and starts.
MadisonMan: "...They continue to rise, in fits and starts." Indeed they do. At about 3 mm/year. If you look at the longer record, that rise rate has been roughly the same since almost the time that the mile-thick Laurentide ice sheet began to melt. If we look to the longer record, then, there has been no change. Our "contributions" to "global warming," by some mysterious mechanism that is both incredibly fickle and absolutely certain, are somehow the reason why…nothing has happened.
I simply can't reconcile the doomsaying noises from the grant-grubbers and the clickbaiting media, with the empirical record.
Can you help me here?
MadisonMan: forgot to say, as NOAA itself does, that at 3 mm/year we are looking at a foot a century of sea level rise. That would mean that your great-great-grandchildren will have to move the cooler a little farther up the beach.
Owen, 12:03:
"[Water] enters and leaves the atmosphere at a rate thousands (millions?) of times faster than the other GHGs. Every time a cloud forms, every time the rain comes: massive instant changes."
Right. It is, to borrow a favorite phrase of Robert G. Brown (ever come across him?), an insanely difficult problem!
So they assume - rather than throw up their hands and give up at the outset - that water vapor must have been in equilibrium with clouds, over time, before we started tinkering with the composition of the atmosphere. And the alarmist predictions take it from there: Warming --> more water vapor --> more warming.
It's a theory. Somewhere along the line it became dogma, at least to some important people in the field.
The Shill is angry at someone who doesn't share his obsession with a criminal liar, and is mad, I guess, that people are saying stuff on a blog that he doesn't agree with, but can't refute.
What a sad little life.
Ok, I stand corrected as to the elevation of DC. I did live there maybe 45 years ago, and was visiting every quarter for a number of years, but never followed the Patomic to the Ocean in the five years I lived there. It really isn't that far. Elevation of the Whie House is apparently 95 feet, which still means some time before it is flooded - centuries maybe, but not the millennia that I was suggesting above.
t in vt
Your reading comprehension deficit aside, you live at Althouse. Can't get much sadder than that.
coupe said...
Rusty said...Odd. Don't you think?...
It's all relative to the data you collect. I can prove that 1 + 1 is not equal to 2.
Long before you see water on your driveway, the rising sea will pollute the underground water aquifers, although this is a battle between the fracking industry on who will succeed first.
You're arguing with the NOAA, not me.
And, of course, you're assertion to the contrary is meaningless.
JPS said: "...Right. It is, to borrow a favorite phrase of Robert G. Brown (ever come across him?), an insanely difficult problem!" Bingo. Love that guy. What a voice of reason and experience.
I am not a physicist and I don't even pretend to play one, but every time I see a thunderhead I want to ask, how many Joules just got moved to the tropopause, that the warmest ninnies cannot (by 2-3 orders of magnitude) even begin to account for?
JPS: sorry, I forgot to respond to this: "And the alarmist predictions take it from there: Warming --> more water vapor --> more warming.
It's a theory. Somewhere along the line it became dogma, at least to some important people in the field."
That little loop you describe has positive feedback. Nothing in Nature can last long with positive feedback. If CO2 increases caused warming that caused water vapor increases that caused more warming? It would have happened about 4 billion years ago and the Earth would have never been more than a hot sterile rock. The fact that we are here arguing about feedback is a guarantee that it must be negative or at most neutral.
See also: Ponzi scheme.
Bruce Hayden: "... Elevation of the Whie House is apparently 95 feet, which still means some time before it is flooded - centuries maybe, but not the millennia that I was suggesting above."
At 3 mm/year or 300 mm/century (about 1 foot/century) I think you can still squeak out 8 or 9 millennia before the WH front lawn is too wet for press conferences on global warming.
I found a slick calculator with Google. Turns out that 2 mm per year for a century is 200 mm or 7.84 inches. 10 mm per year for a century is a meter, which is 39.37 inches - just over three feet. Then, you need to compare this to the economic life of most buildings, which typically range from 30-50 years. Even if we were to double this, to a century, this would mean that we could just naturally rebuild vulnerable buildings when they naturally wear out maybe a foot or so higher every century or so. Some of our national monuments may be problematic, but even the White House should be safe for the next millennium or so.
Bruce Hayden: thanks for the discussion of actual sea level rise, actual elevations, and (math!) how long before the world we know might come to resemble the doomsday the warmists predict.
Funny how empirical reality rapidly ends the debate. Using a few basic facts, we end up shooting fish in barrels.
Where is the opposing viewpoint here?
Anyone?
Yet here we are 30+ years later, and you know what? They continue to rise, in fits and starts.
...and will continue to do so, as long as this interglacial lasts....than they'll start to drop as the Earth goes back into the deep freezer.....
Your reading comprehension deficit aside, you live at Althouse. Can't get much sadder than that.
Get back to me when I start going to popular blogs I don't like to read and complain about the the content even when I don't have any counter arguments worth a termite's fart.
"he's saying things now for the purpose of getting elected"
Hey..Adams finally gets it.
What part of "Census" by the political class don't you deniers get about this Theory?
I just want the "con" part to be more visible. It's little enough to ask.
Statements of fact are testable to determine their truthfulness.
That this is not understood by most people makes conversations with them difficult, as hitting is no longer allowed among polite society, or Democrats.
Trump is going to end the Global Warming religion to the extent you can end a religion. I guess it will become more of a cult. It cannot withstand scrutiny.
The sea levels have been constantly rising since the last ice age at a rate that is inconsequential. They continue to do so.
The difference between 350 and 400 PPM is 50 parts per million. 50/1,000,000 = no significant difference. I run CO2 up to 1500 ppm in grow rooms. Plants grow a lot faster and use it all up very quickly.
This is a negative feedback loop that actually happens and is why no matter what humans do the planet stays on equilibrium. If there were positive feedback loops like the warmists contend there would be no life on this plant. Oxygen levels have been as high as 40$ for example.
CO2 lvls have been over 2000ppm for more of earth's history than under. If you reach 500 ppm and all of a sudden the earth goes into a positive feedback loop and the earth's surface turns to glass. This is clearly not what happens as this planet has been there before.
"5. If Trump determines that climate change is real, he's the one person who can bring along the people who now think it's a hoax."
Speaking as one of those who now think it's a hoax, I'm afraid not.
I am glad to see that I am not the only one who is increasingly disappointed by Scott Adams and his not-nearly-so-clever-as-he-imagines defenses of Mr. Trump, which he always insists are not defenses but just explanations. He has become quite the cheerleader and gives Trump far more credit than the man deserves. This particular argument, all laid out like some polished mathematical proof, is one of his weaker ones and does not hold up under scrutiny, as other commenters have already noted.
Suffice to say that I do not share Dr. Althouse's fascination with Adams' ramblings, which she shares with us with increasing regularity. I suspect I will start skipping over more of these "see, you guys just need to look at Mr. Trump from another angle" posts.
Right. Serious analysis of the intended commitments of a buffoonish narcissist who will say anything to glory in his election as president. Might as well calculate the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.
I found a slick calculator with Google. Turns out that 2 mm per year for a century is 200 mm or 7.84 inches. 10 mm per year for a century is a meter, which is 39.37 inches - just over three feet. Then, you need to compare this to the economic life of most buildings, which typically range from 30-50 years.
Fritz said that was the rate over the last hundred years, not the rate predicted as the positive feedback loops kick in and the rate accelerates.
So nice job finding a calculator. Pity it can't do your thinking for you, too.
Trump is going to end the Global Warming religion to the extent you can end a religion. I guess it will become more of a cult. It cannot withstand scrutiny.
Lol. SCIENCE IS A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!!!
The oceans are rising, but to not worry, Manhattan and Washington DC will be expendable.
We may not have to saw off the eastern seaboard.
They will be climate refugees who will come live with you, and change your local politics to something decent for a change.
'positive feedback loops kick in' <= global warming fantasist
'sensitivity' means at what rate CO2/methane/whatever emissions convert to long-term temperature increases. nothing positive-feedbacks to infinity.
i think it's important to get a solid estimate on it.
it's also important to get a solid cost vs benefit analysis of intervening.
there aren't only downsides and 'positive feedback' to extra CO2 emissions. you get greater agricultural productivity.
Adams is hypnotizing we who secretly yearn for Trump and believe in the power of reason. Yes, they're "just" stories and rationalizations. But are they false? That you're not convinced doesn't convince me. You may know a thousand pieces of trivia, but I can only trim my own sails, and only I can trim them.
Fritz said that was the rate over the last hundred years, not the rate predicted as the positive feedback loops kick in and the rate accelerates.
Nice response. Unfortunately, there is really no real evidence supporting positive feedback, esp. runaway positive feedback. It is as likely to be negative feedback. The assumption of runaway positive feedback is part of why the climate models seem to have grossly overpredicted a rising global temperature over the last couple decades, which we haven't seen (despite NOAA's attempt to hide this by rejiggering their past climate data interpolations). The basic problem, as noted above, is that these models assume certain interactions between CO2 and H2O, which is, of course, a far, far, more potent greenhouse gas. The H2O concentration in the atmosphere varies by some 400x, since it condenses at human living temperatures. And, it can vary very quickly (when it rains, snows, etc.) CO2 does not. And, maybe as importantly, the H2O vapor in the atmosphere can have a distinct impact on the amount and type of clouds (as well as their thickness and height), which can act to reflect solar energy, instead of absorbing it. Or, they can operate as a blanket, retaining heat. Etc. As others have pointed out, when the models predicting runaway, or even a large, positive feedback effect can predict both the future and the past somewhat accurately, we can start taking them seriously. (And, after the priesthood fully disclose how they get from the raw temperature data to the published global interpolated temperature data).
We are still waiting to see sea level increases skyrocket at the rates that AlGore (who apparently only took two undergraduate science classes, that he barely passed)predicted, and you seem to be buying into. Instead, the rate of increase seems to have leveled off, or maybe even dropped over the last couple of decades. Unfortunately, reality seems to be intruding on the models that you and Gore seem to have based your predictions on. I know - if we just wait long enough, and continue polluting with CO2 (as silly as that sounds), we will eventually see greatly increased increases in the sea level year by year. In any case, I was using historical figures (no matter how well they well they were interpolated). There is no real evidence to the contrary. Models, but not evidence.
it's also important to get a solid cost vs benefit analysis of intervening.
This isn't something that you are going to see, because the results would kill the urgency for transferring massive amounts of money to green causes, etc. The reality is that you have to massively overestimate the amount of sea level increases to justify any action based on buildings and the like being inundated by oceans, since economic obsolescence will result in most buildings around the world being rebuilt long before they could be flooded. And, running out of food ignores that plants grow better at higher temperatures, water vapor, and CO2 concentrations, and that moving the frost line north even a hundred miles would result in billions of acres of new farm land, far more than would be lost in any conceivable flooding. And, looking at single crops ignores that farmers around the world can adopt to changing growing conditions far, far, faster than they could even a century ago. Instead of taking centuries for crops to migrate around the world, they can do so in years, if not months. Moreover, man evolved in a tropical environment, and most of our species was thrown back to Africa during the last major ice age. We do better in warmer weather. Historically, we thrive when it is warmer, and die when it is cooler. More disease, etc.
"global warming fantasist" <= AGW Denialist
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/27/world/greenland-is-melting-away.html?_r=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzhT_7g0qpA
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/nasa-captures-climate-change-action
You're a real reality hater, aren't you?
Historically, we thrive when it is warmer, and die when it is cooler. More disease, etc.
Can I put your head in an oven?
Only the dumbest, and most retrograde of ignoramuses actually believes less disease accompanies tropical life.
Moreover, man evolved in a tropical environment, and most of our species was thrown back to Africa during the last major ice age. We do better in warmer weather.
Technology did away with that, retard. Another thing that you obviously must hate.
There is a full court press on "global warming", and its gone on for the last 20 years. It (the "science") is not credible because it is purchased. There isnt now, and there has never been a corresponding criticism of methods, data and conclusions, because those that do are not funded.
Its the sort of thing that Feynman warned about. There isnt the integrity in the field that Feynman required, the "leaning over backward" to disprove or indicate doubts and uncertainties in ones own work as well as ones colleagues. The field has had outsiders who have pointed out glaring errors, because nobody on the inside cared to do that necessary work. And then that bit just gets quietly dropped, no acknowlegement.
This does not inspire trust.
Its telling that the people who created the best quality data series, the satellite temperature record, the Huntsville team, Christie&Spencer, are the most outspoken critics of pretty much everything here. Its the satellite record that got the ball rolling in the first place, now because its not behaving, its no good? Feynman would smell a rat.
I have no particular credentials here, in meteorology, but a lifetime in technology tells me that we are dealing with a very cheesy situation. My closest contact with this stuff was helping make some of the parts of the rockets (Aerojet, Martin, Lockheed, Boeing, among many others were our clients) that launched the satellites that gave us the darn temperature record in the first place. You cant run a rocket manufacturing and launch process with the kind of ethics the "climate scientists" have shown.
There is a full court press on "global warming", and its gone on for the last 20 years. It (the "science") is not credible because it is purchased. There isnt now, and there has never been a corresponding criticism of methods, data and conclusions, because those that do are not funded.
Things must be very cozy in your bubble.
I have no particular credentials here -
You can say that again.
Just go with your gut, Mr "cheesy". We definitely need some emotional "something feels fishy about this" stuff thrown in to a well-funded campaign deployed by the fossil fuels industries. Glad you can contribute your ignorance, emotion and whatever else to the Denialist cause. Many, many denialists await the addition to your much needed voice to their cacophony of ignorance and reality hatred.
The climate is ALWAYS changing. It has NEVER been static. Whether it's anthropogenic is another matter entirely, and whether there's anything that can be done without wrecking our economy and plunging us back into the Dark Ages in order to placate Gaia is still another matter. All I know is that most of the climate alarmists seem to live awfully close to the coasts. If they really believed that the oceans were rising, they'd live in the Rockies. As Glenn Reynolds has said, I'll believe it's a crisis when they start acting like it's a crisis.
The guys that do this arent funded by "fossil fuels" - Spencer & Christie are (or were) on the public payroll. Look them up.
The popular web guys arent either. They arent exactly rich. Check out Watt and co.
The anti-GW are running a guerilla campaign with zero paid media.
I am confident of my judgement.
People pay me for my judgement. When I say sonething smells, it smells, if I say a project will fail it fails, and I am never, ever wrong.
Its funny though. A huge part of an engineers responsibility is to say what must be done to test a system, a mechanism, a part, so that the odds of failure are minimized. This requirement to say that something is not good enough, that the design is defective, that it needs more work, is something like a holy trust. Unfortunately this does not make us popular.
I have been called Cassandra.
No Clyde, It's about whether you can continue pushing the Merchants of Doubt agenda to convince people that changing the composition of the atmosphere doesn't effect the climate.
It's also about whether you can convince people that the technologies replacing current energy production strategies constitute a "wrecking of the economy."
And Glenn Reynolds is a certified dipshit, who definitely married much better than he deserved. He can believe what he wants. The fact is that with any natural system, you can only proceed so far in one direction before irreversibility makes the severity of a situation clear or not. You don't tell a diabetic (or even pre-diabetic) that he can continue his habits before the first DKA crisis. You don't tell a patient with high blood pressure that it's not a crisis until his kidneys and eyesight fail. Just because any impact on the changing of the atmosphere requires policy changes to be effective, doesn't mean people will refuse to live in the meantime. It just means they recognize the paucity of most actions short of that. You can't get the individual organs to change an entire patient's habits, stopping a single poacher won't keep a species from going extinct. It takes collective action and other things that you rugged society-haters don't get. It's not about virtue. It's about rational action, asshole.
I am confident of my judgement.
People pay me for my judgement. When I say sonething smells, it smells,
I think your brain smells like rotting, week-old tuna fish.
You are a paid prostitute.
... if I say a project will fail it fails, and I am never, ever wrong.
Tell it to that intelligent designer/project manager who made the atmosphere, then.
Hey, I haven't had a DKA crisis yet. So my diabetes must be fine. No point running around like a chicken with my head cut off! Fuck those doctors, I feel fine! And I'm acting like nothing's wrong. I'm sure I'll know something's wrong at some point before my blood sugar reaches 600. Just like that slowly boiling frog, I'll know to jump out when the time's right.
I didnt call you names R&B.
I could respond in kind but I wont.
The technologies that are NOT replacing current systems are expensive, unreliable, and only exist because governments force energy users to subsidize them. In places like CA and NY we are talking 2x electric rates overall, which hurts everyone, but eventually comes out of the hides of workers and consumers.
In Germany (already an extreme case of sacrifice to eco gods) we are talking major sacrifices in real personal income - what, you think they are rich? Nope. Their median disposable income is 3/4 the US. They should be richer than the US, because they are smarter people. They suffer for nothing.
All that we can hope for under the green tyrrany is population collapse, paralysis and decline.
They are the principal enemies of mankind in our age, vampires walking in the open.
Oh you're such a know-it-all bouillabaisse puti. I hope you are ok with being a know-it-all, because some people might find that to be a "name."
But not you, I hope. Hopefully you are not too humble to know how awesome your omniscient intellect is. If only you could have designed the heavens and the earth, then this planet would be a better place. I weep for every waking second that I realize the universe wasn't designed by you, and how much better it would be if it were.
You could re-design the atmosphere to be comprised of anything you wanted, and it would be incredible. Take away all the gases, even, and just replace them with towers of chocolate pudding. Why would humans need to breathe? Why concern yourself with how well our chocolate pudding atmosphere regulates temperature? It's chocolate pudding!
Even better, make it so that the chocolate pudding is an industrial by-product. Then the "system" would really be up to your exacting standards. Let's also pretend that industrial by-products are usually harmless, let alone useful.
Oh Rama, Ganesh, Bouillabaisse, Shiva and Buddha. We meditate in intent concentration over this incredible planet you have created for us, with its chocolate pudding skies, and as much carbon as can make it throughout!
No, but seriously. You need to fuck off. Your remarks are more disjointed and convoluted than a Rube Goldberg diagram.
R & B:
1) Why has the human population continued to climb, with an ever increasing standard of living for the world's population, even as the Earth has gotten warmer?
2) Why do populations get denser the closer you get to the equator, and smaller the closer you get to the poles?
3) What is the "correct" temperature for the Earth, and why?
Gahrie:
1) How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And why? And wherefore? And how many things can we look to that have nothing to do with anything else? And if the physical laws of the universe do not conspire to make us richer, then surely we should change them.
2) If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does that mean that not hearing things keeps trees from falling?
3) Oh boy, a question worth actually answering.
I'd say it's probably a temperature within the same range that brought us the agricultural revolution, which led to civilization, and human society as we know it.
But maybe those are over-rated things to you.
Now you are telling me to fuck off.
Did I berate you like that?
No, I merely suggested you go have a look at real things, like electric rates. This info is public, and comparable tables are easy to find. Thats just one thing. Now go also and check on, oh, generation costs, oh, also real median incomes. And on small business failures. And workforce participation. And business climate. And bit after bit after bit of economic reality.
Now, consider, that yes, compared to you I know a great deal about this. I deal with the regulatory burdens all day every day, thats why people pay me these days, to stay "compliant". Do they want new improved products or services? Yes, but first they must be compliant, and thats expensive. So you see, Im lucky. I can tell you why all those bits of data are what they are, because I see the process daily. You dont see the process of decline like I do, so you, maybe, cant be blamed for not knowing.
Why is the medieval warm period known for being a time of unusual population growth, while the Little Ice Age is known for the Black Death, huge population loss, and civil disorder?
I'd say it's probably a temperature within the same range that brought us the agricultural revolution, which led to civilization, and human society as we know it.
If you are referring to the Neolithic agricultural revolution...that was created by global warming as the Earth entered the current interglacial period. The Earth was warmer then than it is today.
If your goal is as high a population as you can get Gahrie then obviously you're asking the wrong questions since the only question that matters is how high a global population you want? 20 billion? 100 billion? I'm so glad you've found that removing uncomfortable clothing in warm weather leads to more fucking and kids. You know what else does that? Poverty. People have more kids when their chances of success decrease. So I guess you must be a fan of poverty also. Myself, I like good quality of life (regardless of energy source or how much of it we use or conserve). But I must be missing out on these fantastic priorities of yours.
If you are referring to the Neolithic agricultural revolution...that was created by global warming as the Earth entered the current interglacial period. The Earth was warmer then than it is today.
I'm talking about the freaking agricultural revolution. The last ten thousand years and how people started planting things instead of foraging for them. If it was warmer at some point therein then that only defeats your simple-minded mantra of Higher temperature = More farming since we farm more today than ever before. But then, how would you be able to comment without simple-minded mantras?
Rhythm and Balls said...
"Trump is going to end the Global Warming religion to the extent you can end a religion. I guess it will become more of a cult. It cannot withstand scrutiny.
Lol. SCIENCE IS A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!!!"
Scientific method: You develop a hypothesis and perform experiments that show significant correlation or deviation from the control group to support the hypothesis. Then you publish and it goes to peer review. Peers do their best to disprove the hypothesis and recreate the original result.
None of this has been done with Global warming. In fact when peers have raised concerns about the hypothesis they are denied tenure and frozen out of grants. Journals refuse to publish negative results and blacklist authors of studies that do not match the narrative created.
This has all the hallmarks of religion and has no resemblance to the scientific method.
You are getting creamed here R&B. Someone as smart as you needs to realize this is a time to accommodate your paradigm to the information challenging it. You are unable to assimilate the new information other than to ignore it.
R 7 B:
You ignorant slut. Didn't anyone teach you how to read?
Both human population and the world's standard of living are increasing at the same time. There is less poverty in the world today than at any point in human history.
I do not believe in population growth for the sake of population growth, but I do believe that humanity and humans are the most valuable things in the universe.
Human civilization and history began as humans did transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers. this transition was caused by global warming. If the interglacial had not begun, and the Earth warmed, we'd still be wandering around in small groups picking each other's lice. You, and the alarmists want us to go back to living in caves and picking lice....at least most of us...you guys of course will still have to sacrifice and maintain a 21st century lifestyle.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"I'm talking about the freaking agricultural revolution. The last ten thousand years and how people started planting things instead of foraging for them. If it was warmer at some point therein then that only defeats your simple-minded mantra of Higher temperature = More farming since we farm more today than ever before. But then, how would you be able to comment without simple-minded mantras?"
He is giving you specific data points and time periods. You are throwing out generalizations and mischaracterizations.
It is clear that over history agriculture has been more successful during warmer periods than cold periods. If you had a test group and a control group using similar technology and techniques but had one group warmer than the control the warmer group is going to perform better ever time by a significant amount. It is also clear that when agricultural output goes up standards of living are better.
I would be interested to hear why you think the warmists theory of a positive feedback loop has any supporting evidence. It is clear that as CO2 levels go up plants use more CO2 and grow faster increasing uptake in a negative feedback loop. It is also clear that every irrational prediction made by the global warmists in the 90's has been wrong. At some point the theory is proven wrong.
I do not believe in population growth for the sake of population growth,
Yeah you do.
...but I do believe that humanity and humans are the most valuable things in the universe.
Which is why you measure their worth in terms of population growth alone and want women to pop out as many units as it takes for you to revel in the fleshy mass of human "value." Just move out of your red state and into a city already if you miss having aimlessly wandering humanity and humans around you.
Human civilization and history began as humans did transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers. this transition was caused by global warming.
Bullshit. It was one thing that happened at the time. The other thing was human ingenuity and the evolution of grasses.
If the interglacial had not begun, and the Earth warmed, we'd still be wandering around in small groups picking each other's lice.
And so would you. But you'd be dreaming of diesel engines to do what nature already did.
You, and the alarmists want us to go back to living in caves and picking lice....at least most of us...
Lol. Ok, you can go do that if you want. I have a feeling your life already has about as much meaning and purpose to it as that one anyway.
...you guys of course will still have to sacrifice and maintain a 21st century lifestyle.
Not. Worth. Addressing. Aren't you allied with those corporatists who want to make it illegal for homeowners to sell back their energy to the utilities?
I'm sorry. Did Achilles say something? With that mighty heel of his. Or was it his ankle... or cankle?
It's so hard to hear him over the din of all his fellow reality-denying, creation-destroying society haters. Though he does try. At least when not salivating over being "creamed."
I would be interested to hear why you think the warmists theory of a positive feedback loop has any supporting evidence.
No you're not. There is no shortage of irreversibly melted, continent-sized glacier masses that you will go out of your way to pretend to not see.
Someone as smart as you needs to realize this is a time to accommodate your paradigm to the information challenging it. You are unable to assimilate the new information other than to ignore it.
Someone as conservative as you needs to stop getting your misinformation from just any section of the bathroom walls of this electronic society we know of as the "internet". It's like I'm listening to a lunatic jumping around beneath a bunch of heavily wooded conifers telling me that there is no forest, only these damn pine cones. And look at this pine cone! And this one! It's got things that jut out of it... Wow! And if you look at things really close-up, did you know that your eyes will cross? That's deep. Ain't no melting glaciers here! The internet confused me and distracted me from them while making me feel better about my fossil fuel religion.
"Do not try to see the melting glacier, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no glacier. Then you will see it is not the science that bends, it is only yourself."
Aren't you allied with those corporatists who want to make it illegal for homeowners to sell back their energy to the utilities?
Nope..I believe in the free market..I think it's a great idea if they can compete. I don't believe the utilities should be forced to buy it though.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"I would be interested to hear why you think the warmists theory of a positive feedback loop has any supporting evidence.
No you're not. There is no shortage of irreversibly melted, continent-sized glacier masses that you will go out of your way to pretend to not see."
This is your problem R&B. You do not understand the consequences of a positive feedback loop. Then you mischaracterize what others say to hide your ignorance. If a postive feedback loop existed as the warmists claim it would be unstoppable and exterminate all life on the planet. This is obviously impossible. CO2 lvl's have been higher than 2000 ppm for more of the planets history than under it. This destroys your entire hypothesis.
Nope..I believe in the free market..I think it's a great idea if they can compete. I don't believe the utilities should be forced to buy it though.
"Compete" = Gahrie code for each homeowner building the same network of wires that the utilities lease from us, the people. It's a massive natural monopoly that he obviously favors utilities controlling with no strings attached, because that's what a "free market" means to him. Free from access to people without the economic clout to challenge their monopoly. "Free" to be too big to do what works for a measly homeowner. And again, we're talking about public resources.
So Gahrie does the only thing that Rush Limbaugh would approve of him doing and inserts phony economic talk into his CEO-worship to make it sound all fancy and philosophical and ideological and not at all like the next ridiculous over-simplification that it is.
But it is nice that as with the bank bail-outs, he believes in privatizing gains (for utilities) and socializing losses (to the consumers). Thanks, Gahrie!
This is your problem R&B. You do not understand the consequences of a positive feedback loop. Then you mischaracterize what others say to hide your ignorance. If a postive feedback loop existed as the warmists claim it would be unstoppable and exterminate all life on the planet. This is obviously impossible. CO2 lvl's have been higher than 2000 ppm for more of the planets history than under it. This destroys your entire hypothesis.
Good god are you a world-class dumbass. First off, we're not starting from scratch here, you 21 Trisomy-an. So no need to talk about "my hypothesis", just like I don't pretend that you made up your bullshit, as if you didn't copy it verbatim from the right-wing reality-hating machine. Positive feedback doesn't mean unstoppable, it means exacerbated. That's the problem with you science-hating morons, you have to be taught every fucking detail and only look up the parts that Rush Limballs and Sean Hannity and the other cancer researchers told you to look up. MORON.
That's it. I'm going to bed. You amateur-PhD-level geochemists can debate how to re-write the rules of science according to what's politically expedient for Rush Limbaugh on your own.
Gahrie said...
Aren't you allied with those corporatists who want to make it illegal for homeowners to sell back their energy to the utilities?
Nope..I believe in the free market..I think it's a great idea if they can compete. I don't believe the utilities should be forced to buy it though.
Let me help ritmo out here since his reply to this reeks of vodka.
The homeowner would lease the infrastructure from the utility on a prorated basis and would supply his electricity at the same wholesale rate as the utility. Right now, by law, utilities are forced to buy homeowner electricity at the retrial price without having to contribute to the upkeep of the infrastructure. The beauty of this is that multiple homeowners can band together and form a co-op which would idealy reduce the contribution each has to pay for infrastructure upkeep. Even better if they can find a way to store their electricity and release it in times of high demand.
Vote for Bernie ritmo. He'll fix this injustice.
If Rhythm & Blues really thinks there is cataclysmic global warming should he not stop posting here? Does blogger use windmills to power their servers? How many millions of websites are there. All of which are on servers, must of which are running from power on the grid. All to bring us Netflix, and althouse's blog.
How about those who really believe stop contributing to this environment. Because the polar bears are dying.
Gahrie, Achilles, buwaya puti, rhhardin: thanks for the informative content and very civil tone. I enjoy it and I think the thread benefits greatly. Despite the angry vandalization.
Does blogger use windmills to power their servers?
I realize that as a Republican, you can't be expected to actually know anything - especially the things you pontificate about. But I guess that's the downside of being affiliated with a tribe that sees ignorance as a virtue and stupidity as a sign of strength.
Because the polar bears are dying.
The coral reefs are dying, the oceans' fish populations are dying. We are bringing about the sixth mass extinction in earth's history. I understand that you hate the lifeforms with which we share this planet, but no doubt a good number of them help keep the place liveable for us, as well. So tell me, exactly how many species do you see it as a virtue to kill off? And how many would you like to see go extinct? How many have, in your feeble mind, no useful benefit to us at all - simply to keep your masters at Exxon-Mobil well compensated and their kids' trust funds very well indexed?
And finally, if you view it as a virtue to kill off things that you don't personally find to be useful, surely you must believe that it should be legal for a kid to kill his parents as he comes of age. I mean, if he doesn't need them any more, then why should it be wrong for him to kill them? It's good to kill things that you can't find a use for, right? That seems to be the point you're arguing. I'm glad someone had the courage to make it. Someone as courageous as you, jr.
Post a Comment