Writes Van Jones, referring to Trump's executive order directed at ending Obama's Clean Power Plan which was aimed at slowing the changing of Earth's climate.
I love the intellectual honesty displayed in the qualification that completes Jones's dire statement — "at least, for a planet that is liveable for humans."
Perhaps Jones, like me remembers, George Carlin on the ridiculousness of the human notion Save the Earth (NSFW):
"The planet isn't going anywhere. We are!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
232 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 232 of 232Steve Uhr,
"Because of human caused climate change"
There is absolutely NO WAY to know how much of the changes are due to human activity and how much are due to other factors.
As far as NASA's reliability, they have made frequent changes to the data, adjusting for this or that. And the models still don't work.
So why do you put so much faith in them?
Because of human caused climate change, land ice is decreasing by 280 billion tons per year and sea levels are rising 3.4 milimeters per year.
Assuming those numbers are true....how do you know it is AGW causing them and not natural climate change? The seas have been rising since before civilization....remember the Bering land bridge? Land ice has been melting for thousands of years...there used to be a mile of ice piled on top of Chicago...do you want it back?
According to NASA. That's a foot in a lifetime at current rates. Miami is six feet above sea level.
So my great great great great grandchildren MIGHT have a problem?
Trump wants to end most research on climate change.
Trump want to end government subsidies of research into climate change..not the same thing at all.
Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.
Only by manipulating data...and even then the supposed rise in temperature is less then the probability of error by a factor of ten.
Doesn't any of that concern you at all?
Nope.
"As far as NASA's reliability, they have made frequent changes to the data, adjusting for this or that."
That's how science works. It's not like religion where nothing is permitted to change.
"As far as NASA's reliability, they have made frequent changes to the data, adjusting for this or that."
That's how science works. It's not like religion where nothing is permitted to change.
No..science is based on observed data....which the alarmists refuse to share and often claim is "lost".
"As far as NASA's reliability, they have made frequent changes to the data, adjusting for this or that."
That's how science works. It's not like religion where nothing is permitted to change.
OK, Steve, then you choose which changes to believe.
I don't know what you are referring to exactly, but one cannot have a peer-reviewed paper published and refuse to disclose the underlying data.
Steve,
They make changes to previously measured raw data. Not to the models that interpret the data, they change the data itself. That is NOT how real science works. It is how this pseudo-science works.
I don't know what you are referring to exactly, but one cannot have a peer-reviewed paper published and refuse to disclose the underlying data.
They disclose the manipulated data...not the observed data.
By the way, many major errors have been discovered in those peer reviewed papers. None of the predictions in them have come to pass.
But the key question...what data would be acceptable to show AGW is meaningless?
More heat? AGW!
Less heat? AGW!
More snow? AGW!
Less snow? AGW!
earthquakes? AGW!
You are free to believe that all climate scientists commit research fraud, and risk losing their career and reputation. I think that is highly unlikely. If it were all a hoax, many scientists would be more than happy to expose it and get the credit. Although I believe in many big conspiracies, this isn't one.
Gahrie, that's presumably why 'global warming' was swapped for 'climate change'. Climate change is as old as the earth.
Steve, you are free to believe whatever you wish. Believe in the tooth fairy, if you like. Empirical evidence from many children has shown that, on leaving a tooth under one's pillow at night, a coin will appear in its place the next morning.
I hope you all strap yourself in at night. The theory of gravity might be a hoax.
You are free to believe that all climate scientists commit research fraud, and risk losing their career and reputation.
Actually, Steve, it's the ones who don't commit research fraud who risk losing their careers, and possibly their lives. The story of Judith Curry comes to mind. You may also want to read this summary of the state of real climate science.
Steve,
How old were you in the 70's? Old enough to remember the dire warnings of the age that was going to start before the new century? How'd that turn out?
If it were all a hoax, many scientists would be more than happy to expose it and get the credit.
Which is precisely why all of the pure data was "lost".
"I don't know what you are referring to exactly, but one cannot have a peer-reviewed paper published and refuse to disclose the underlying data."
I peer reviewed articles for engineering journals. What you said is a lie.
"Because of human caused climate change, land ice is decreasing by 280 billion tons per year and sea levels are rising 3.4 milimeters per year. "
Let's do science....
Please show the evidence for this claim. Don't forget to include the following:
280 billion tons per year was the rate of change over how many years?
3.4mm per year per year was the rate of change over how many years?
I hope you do realize that for a short enough duration, you can demonstrate anything you want.
Steve, I am still challenging you....
"I think climate change is largely caused by human activity and will result in serious ill effects on a global scale if nothing is done to counteract it fairly soon. I think that is what the vast majority of climate scientists believe, and that is why I believe it as well. "
Care to provide empirical evidence to prove that the "vast majority of climate scientists believe" in all that? Or it's an emotional issue for you, so you don't care about evidence?
If you don't reply, I will assume you conceded... agreed?
There are more people on earth than ever before, yet worldwide poverty and hunger are at all time lows.
Global warming is good for humanity.
Steve Uhr has been haranguing us over Global Climate Change, just in time for the northeastern states to get snow on April Fool's Day. Coincidence? Not if you've heard of the "Al Gore Effect."
Steve Uhr,
I wrote up thread, I don't believe it's all a hoax. There's some good science and some genuine reason for concern. There's also a hell of a lot of sloppy science riding coat tails because of Relevance, there's confirmation bias and Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy; and most of all, there's a lot of human temptation and structural incentive in favor of more alarmism, less caution in their findings.
As for peer review, it's a mechanism for quality control. Usually it works pretty well. But anyone with direct experience of it can think of an article that made us wonder which three incurious kindergarteners the editor selected to review it. And when you have honchos in a field who've conspired to rig the peer review process, and haven't been run out of the field with extreme prejudice, you don't get to invoke peer review as though it settles everything.
Non-rhetorical question here: Do you know what "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" refer to? Hint: It's not a decline in real temperatures. It's more subtle, more insidious, and more damning than that.
This posting "is some weird shit."
Blogger steve uhr said...
"As far as NASA's reliability, they have made frequent changes to the data, adjusting for this or that."
That's how science works. It's not like religion where nothing is permitted to change.
I can't believe we have an actual global warming nut here to observe !
So Einstein's theories of Relativity are changing ?
You had better tell these guys.
They still think they have to prove the same old theory,
Just over 100 years after he published his general theory of relativity, scientists have found what Albert Einstein predicted as part of the theory: gravitational waves.
"We have detected gravitational waves. We did it," said David Reitze, executive director of LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, which was created to do just what Reitze announced.
You had better let them know that they are dealing in religion since it is the only thing that changes,
Steve, you need a new hobby.
Charlton Heston reads Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park Preamble.
exhelodrvr1 said...
Steve Uhr,
"Because of human caused climate change"
"There is absolutely NO WAY to know how much of the changes are due to human activity and how much are due to other factors.
As far as NASA's reliability, they have made frequent changes to the data, adjusting for this or that. And the models still don't work.
So why do you put so much faith in them?"
Because it is a religion to steve and the vast majority of climate change syncophants.
Here is why.
If pressed neither steve or Al Gore could explaine the exact mechanisms that drive weather on this planet and how the variability can effect weather somewhere else. However since there is no god something must exist to contain his faith. Steve hasn't chosen science. After all adhereing to the scientific method-thank you Paracelsus-requires rigor and patience. Best leave that to someone else.Steve has chosen something bigger than himself led by men and women who are much more knowlegeable than himself. The priesthood of science. He knows we need renewable energy but he's a little vague how this is going to be implemented. He has no knowlegde of the various mechanisms that use energy and how it's converted.But by god science has told him we need to do this abd by god we're going to. No matter what the cost.
Global warming is good for humanity.
3/30/17, 6:13 PM
I think that for many extreme environments that is a minus, not a plus.
@Uhr
Late to the party, but a couple of comments.
Peer review doesn't guarantee, or really usually even check the validity of the results, but rather just the methodology and whether the claims are supported by the reported research. Which is part of why a lot of research reads very wishy washy. So, you have a paper that assumes A, B, C, D, E, F concluding M, and suggesting W, X, Y, Z. The probability of M should probably include some statistical probability or error. It is the politicians and opportunists like AlGore who drop off the assumptions and error probabilities, first because they probably don't understand them (remember - AlGore is basically scientifically illiterate, having received barely passing grades in his two bonehead undergraduate science classes), and second because they don't further their political aims. Which is why the IPCC (a political group) executive reports and summaries are inevitably much more strongly worded than the underlying technical reports.
Secondly, the peer review process can be gamed, and has been heavily in this area. We discovered this with the release of the ClimateGate emails, where the seamy side of this was revealed. The "cabal", the leading "experts" in the area repeatedly conspired to steer their research to specific peers for peer review - peers who were trusted to do what they wanted (often members of the cabal). And the applied heavy pressure to journals that were bold enough to consider publishing opposing research. A lot of the pressure was in a commitment by these top names in the field not to publish there if the journal did publish opposing research, thereby diminishing the stature of the journal.
Which gets to the next point, which is the definition of "climatologist". A lot of these early leading experts were essentially tree ring counters - where tree ring counting was being utilized to go back into the past well beyond what was recorded. And, yes, they tried unsuccessfully to use such to discredit the Medieval Warming Period and the more recent Little Ice Age (coming out of that is probably the biggest cause of glass bal warming). In any case, the field, thanks to the many billions spent by govts researching and supporting CAGW, is far bigger now. Which is part of why the 97% of climate scientists agree paper was discredited - they used a very limited, self-serving, definition. The author included tree ring counters but not physicists, astrophysicists, statisticians, mechanical engineers, etc, all of whom tend to be much more skeptical. Why is this important? Because of what those counted as "climatologists" don't know or really understand. For example, some astrophysicists study the varying amounts of solar radiation received by our planet, and posit that most of the variation in global temperature can be explained there. Etc.
Now to the funding of research. Vast majority of the research into global climate, CAGW, etc is by governments, notably, but not exclusively, ours. As you may have noted, the Trump Administration is trying to zero this out, partly because it was so one sided. Also, he issued an EO reversing the Obama Administration policy of essentially pushing/requiring CAGW bias. We are talks billions upon billions being spent every year, all with the explicit bias of supporting the CAGW theory. And, even if the Obama Administration had not been pushing CAGW so hard, the agencies in our govt funding and doing the research have been heavily staffed by true CAGW believers. Many now, of course, fearing for their jobs in a Trump Administration.
Now for the research itself. It can maybe be divided into two categories- attempts to quantify the past historic climate record, and predicting the future. One of the big problems with the former is that it is far from transparent. NOAA recently revised their estimates of recent global temperatures, based on a revised interpolation of existing measurements, but still hasn't openly disclosed exactly how and why they made their adjustments. We first noticed this, again, with ClimateGate, when it was revealed that the original data utilized for the Hadley/CRUT database of global temperatures ((considered primary at the time, the one used to calculate grate the other databases) had been lost, and the computer programs utility send to generate their database was buggy, incorrect, and badly documented.
As to the latter - models are utilized, since the actual calculations are computationally infeasible. One problem is that while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is really a fairly minor one. By itself, the changes in global temperatures are almost de minimus. The big greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, both in quantity and in effectiveness, is H2O in its gaseous phase. The models used to predict future global warming have to assume some interaction between CO2 and H2O, and tend to assume that the H2O will greatly accentuate any warming caused by CO2. This is the source of the positive feedback found in typical climate models. This is highly speculative though because the effects of H2O are so complex. For example, if water vapor concentration is high enough, we get close ups, which affect the albedo of the planet, which in turn affects the amount of solar radiation reflected back on not space. Except that different types of clouds, at different elevations, have different effects. Which is a small part of why the empirical calculations are computationally infeasible.
The result has been that the models used to predict future global temperatures have generated extremely faulty results, consistently greatly overestimating global bal warming. And don't hindcast much better. Though they may be getting better.
Finally, as to the predictions. You mentioned the estimate of a foot a century or so of ocean level increase (whatever that means). Probably, empirically, a bit high, but so what? The economic impact of that is likely close se to irrelevant. Why? Because economic obsolescence of buildings and structures tend to be shorter than that. Which means that when they are rebuilt, in the course of time, they can be built a foot or so higher up the shore. Which is why AlGore can saf lying buy beachfront property, because it will likely be falling down well before it goes underwater.
As to starvation - as others have pointed out, humans do better in warmer times than in colder ones. Wine grapes in Vinland and England, etc. if you look at a globe, you may fight notice the location of the land masses on the planet. Turns out tgat we have huge amounts of land, across Russia/Siberia, Canada, and Alaska that is too cold to farm. Moving the frost line north a bit would open up far more land to farming than would ever be lost through rising oceans. Moreover crops tend to grow better in warmer climates (or, maybe more accurately, the warmer climate plants are more efficient), plus, of course, plants grow better with more CO2 in the atmosphere. As has been historically true, global cooling is what causes mass starvation, not global warming.
Steve Uhr said...
Simple question to all the "deniers" out there (a term I think is loaded and not appropriate):
Cite me to the best peer-reviewed scientific article out there that you are aware of that supports your position on climate change.
3/30/17, 1:44 PM
Steve Uhr said...
mockturtle -- you never answered my question. When should NASA be relied upon and when should it be ignored?
3/30/17, 1:46 PM
I admit to not being able to cite a specific paper or report. What I can site is a litiny of "end of the world" predictions by "scientists" for what the last 50 years? Population explosions, global cooling, global warming, global cooling again, climate change, doomsday clock, pesticides, etc.
I don't have to see proof it won't happen. I have to see proof it will. Where is the math and the data? If you won't show me all of it, you are not a scientist, you are a charlatan.
As to your second post above, I believe PHOTOS over conjecture or consensus. The difference is I can go to the NASA site and see the area photos that show over time the planet healing its self. I can not see the evidence of the claims of the "climate scientist". I can't see an electron either but I believe it is there because not only have other scientists performed independent experiments that demonstrate that there is very likely something we know as an electron but I can repeat a number of those experiments myself. You can not say the same of the claims of climate scientists. m'kay?
Mainstreet @ 5:59
"I think that for many extreme environments that is a minus, not a plus."
Extreme environmentalists want to save the planet for extreme environmentalists.
You and I are a burden.
Original Mike said...
It takes so much power to smelt aluminum, recycling it actually is productive.
We must save the aluminum smelt! Because high performance cars use so much of it.
Post a Comment