Climate change

[Daniel1960]

Why would anyone dispute that smoking cigarette's causes cancer?

 

(Also why is there such a strong correlation between people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer and are global warming skeptics?)

 

Is there?

[Winstonm]

Perhaps this will be of aid to the information-challenged libertarians amongst us.

(sorry, too politically correct)

 

(emphasis added)

In the 1970s eager to protect its activities from regulations and above all its profit margins, corporate America began to challenge the growing influence of environmental organizations and other advocacy groups who had been instrumental in ushering in this golden age of environmental legislation.12 Corporate leaders drew their inspiration from the successful tactics of the tobacco industry to thwart any restrictions on their activities: Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway use the term “tobacco strategy” to explain how corporations set up or fund seemingly independent think tanks and hire experts and scientists in order to discredit scientific research and evidence likely to justify governmental regulations on their activities.13 Needlessly to say, this constitutes a complete perversion of the scientific process, as the goal results in the fact that no scientifically-based call for environmental or safety regulations go unanswered and doubt is cast on the consensus reached in peer-reviewed scientific research. The climate change denial movement is part and parcel of this larger corporate effort to hinder regulations.14

 

And this causes the ultimate in cognitive dissonance for the free-marketers and libertarians:

 

Global warming poses a philosophical challenge to libertarians and small-government conservatives: their world view is premised on the idea that government power should always be held in check lest it destroy individual freedom while the world is faced with a crisis of global proportions that could only be averted by a strong and prolonged government action. The steps necessary to address the challenges posed by global warming would lay waste to the Tea Party’s ironclad faith in the free market as the ultimate problem-solver.

 

However, as Dennison would claim this is "fake news", there is no doubt that it is an unreliable source. B-)

[Daniel1960]

Perhaps this will be of aid to the information-challenged libertarians amongst us.

(sorry, too politically correct)

 

(emphasis added)

 

 

And this causes the ultimate in cognitive dissonance for the free-marketers and libertarians:

 

 

 

However, as Dennison would claim this is "fake news", there is no doubt that it is an unreliable source. B-)

 

Here is an interest study about those claiming to be concerned and skeptical about climate change.

 

"the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors."

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488

[Cyberyeti]

Winston, where was that last piece quoted from ?

[Winstonm]

Winston, where was that last piece quoted from ?

 

Both quotes come from the same source. As does this: (emphasis added)

The effort to undermine the credibility of scientific research on man-made global warming has continued since the early 1990s after the IPCC had started calling the alarm. Nevertheless because of mounting scientific evidence44 it is becoming increasingly untenable to deny reality, which has led conservative and libertarian think tanks to modify their tactics. Increasingly, to paraphrase James Hoggan, “nondenier deniers” are replacing “deniers”. These nondenier deniers are “people who put themselves forth as reasonable interpreters of the science, even as allies in the fight to bring climate change to the public’s attention. But then they throw in a variety of arguments that actually undermine the public appetite for action.”45 Libertarian and conservative climate experts increasingly recoil from denying the fact that the planet is warming, but they usually lose no time in qualifying their acceptance with two caveats. First, they assert that the negative repercussions of a global rise in temperatures are being grossly overstated in order to alarm the public and decision-makers into accepting the environmentalist agenda. Second, nondenier deniers argue that actions to mitigate the effects of global warming will be economically destructive and environmentally insignificant.

 

Unfortunately, the evangelical faith in a free-market god is so deeply felt it eliminates the shame that would normally be felt at being exposed as charlatans, keeping small government climate change deniers to persistently preach the "gospel", while universal biases act on their information gathering to ensure their interpretation of facts must surely be correct - as it is in keeping with their worldview.

 

The big difference between the two sides is not that non-denier side does not have universal biases - obviously, universal biases affect everyone - but that the small-government denier side starts with a preconceived notion that governments must not interfere with enterprise while the other side starts with the idea of finding out what is going on before deciding whether or not government action is needed. The first side aligns with his biases; the other side tries to overcome his biases.

[Al_U_Card]

Both quotes come from the same source. As does this: (emphasis added)

 

 

Unfortunately, the evangelical faith in a free-market god is so deeply felt it eliminates the shame that would normally be felt at being exposed as charlatans, keeping small government climate change deniers to persistently preach the "gospel", while universal biases act on their information gathering to ensure their interpretation of facts must surely be correct - as it is in keeping with their worldview.

 

The big difference between the two sides is not that non-denier side does not have universal biases - obviously, universal biases affect everyone - but that the small-government denier side starts with a preconceived notion that governments must not interfere with enterprise while the other side starts with the idea of finding out what is going on before deciding whether or not government action is needed. The first side aligns with his biases; the other side tries to overcome his biases.

They are quoting James Hoggan .... nuff said.

[Al_U_Card]

This is laughable because there are many times as many equally well qualified scientists who believe in CAGW after doing their research, and also when you look at who funds the skeptics, it can usually be traced back to somebody with a vested interest in CO2 production somewhere. It all points to the same kind of denial associated with the health effects of smoking. From what I see, most of the "I know everything after looking at the internet" people are on the denial side.

 

My main question is as to why ANYBODY would want to cry wolf on this and create an unnecessary panic ? And what's in it for the governments that support this ? It would be much cheaper and easier for everybody to carry on as we are (till the oil runs out).

No real scientist "believes" anything.

[hrothgar]

Could you provide a link to the evidence suggesting that correlation? Thank you.

 

Just look at the history of The Manhattan Institute, or if you prefer of Frederick Seitz or Richard Lindzen or Fred Singer.

 

Alternatively, this is all documented quite well in Mechants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway.

[Al_U_Card]

CAGW alarmist: I have an advanced degree in climatology/meteorology/atmospheric science from one of the top universities in the country, and have spent my adult life working with other top scientists at the most prestigious universities, private foundations, or government agencies.

 

Skeptical real scientist: I read stuff on the internet on a government conspiracy website and I have a BS degree in Real Life from Dennison University. Oh, and somebody I frequently quote has a PhD from the very prestigious MIT and it doesn't matter that the degree was in theoretical math.

 

CAGW alarmist: We have done thousands of studies, laboratory tests, data analysis and projections, computer simulations and they tell us the global warming is a real problem and we need to do something now.

 

Skeptical real scientist: We are ignoring everything you have done because it doesn't agree with our beliefs. We will cherry pick the numbers to prove there is no global warming.

 

CAGW alarmist: Oh dear...

Strawman, ad hom and argument from authority

... you forgot argument from ignorance. You don't need to understand Principle component analysis to realize that post hoc filtering of data will provide whatever conclusion you want (like a hockey stick). Climate "science" is pretty shoddy as it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is easily refuted by accurate analysis.

[Cyberyeti]

No real scientist "believes" anything.

 

yes they do, they believe it after they or someone else has proved it (I am a chemist and mathematician/statistician).

[Al_U_Card]

yes they do, they believe it after they or someone else has proved it (I am a chemist and mathematician/statistician).

Then we have that in common (Hon.B.A.Sc. 1977). As chemists, we acknowledge the preponderance of confirmatory evidence (redox rxns always follow the calcs etc.) but anything that presents a refutation implies the need to refine or redefine our "understanding" of the underlying process. Henry's law tells us that outgassing of CO2 happens after the oceans warm which explain the paleontological record. So many aspects of climatology are so suspect that the hard science (and not the rhetoric or the sketchy interpretations) gets lost. As an adept at stats (I only used them in my process optimization work) surely you must acknowledge the dearth of valid confirmation of CAGW numerology?

[ldrews]

Why would anyone dispute that smoking cigarette's causes cancer?

 

(Also why is there such a strong correlation between people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer and are global warming skeptics?)

 

Do you have any reference to data that shows what percentage of global warming skeptics are people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer? Given the strong evidence regarding cigarettes causing cancer, I would think there are very few remaining who dispute that evidence. And therefore the number who are also global warming skeptics would be very small, perhaps negligible.

[Cyberyeti]

Then we have that in common (Hon.B.A.Sc. 1977). As chemists, we acknowledge the preponderance of confirmatory evidence (redox rxns always follow the calcs etc.) but anything that presents a refutation implies the need to refine or redefine our "understanding" of the underlying process. Henry's law tells us that outgassing of CO2 happens after the oceans warm which explain the paleontological record. So many aspects of climatology are so suspect that the hard science (and not the rhetoric or the sketchy interpretations) gets lost. As an adept at stats (I only used them in my process optimization work) surely you must acknowledge the dearth of valid confirmation of CAGW numerology?

 

I don't judge myself competent on the science of climatology. I trust the experts in the field. As Norwich is the home of the climate research unit at UEA and a couple of the people researching there play bridge, there are experts around.

 

You may remember the name of that unit. It was the victim of what was effectively a DDOS attack by being bombarded with UTTERLY ridiculous numbers of freedom of information requests by deniers which would have meant no research got done for many years if they'd been satisfied. There was then a scandal when they refused to release the data.

[hrothgar]

Do you have any reference to data that shows what percentage of global warming skeptics are people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer? Given the strong evidence regarding cigarettes causing cancer, I would think there are very few remaining who dispute that evidence. And therefore the number who are also global warming skeptics would be very small, perhaps negligible.

 

No one cares what the dittoheads "think"

 

Today they hate RUssia

tomorrow Russia's our best friend

 

Today they love the FBI

Tomorrow the FBI is the deep state

 

Today the Republican party stands for free trade

Tomorrow were being victimized

 

However, if you prefer I can qualify my statement to only refer to "leading climate change skeptics".

[Al_U_Card]

I don't judge myself competent on the science of climatology. I trust the experts in the field. As Norwich is the home of the climate research unit at UEA and a couple of the people researching there play bridge, there are experts around.

 

You may remember the name of that unit. It was the victim of what was effectively a DDOS attack by being bombarded with UTTERLY ridiculous numbers of freedom of information requests by deniers which would have meant no research got done for many years if they'd been satisfied. There was then a scandal when they refused to release the data.

Fair enough. Opinion counts too but additional information can lead to a better informed opinion. The initial FOI requests were few and collegial. It was Phil Jones of the CRU himself that came back with the regrettable "why share my data since you only want to find things wrong with it" reply that started the obfuscatory efforts of the entire CAGW cadre. Science without openly available data and methods to allow for reproducing "results" is not science.

[Daniel1960]

yes they do, they believe it after they or someone else has proved it (I am a chemist and mathematician/statistician).

 

This may be more about semantics than entitling else. Some people use the term ‘believe’ to mean accept as truth without proof (or something like that). Hence, once something is proven, or has sufficient evidence in its favor, then it is no longer considered belief.

[johnu]

Strawman, ad hom and argument from authority

... you forgot argument from ignorance. You don't need to understand Principle component analysis to realize that post hoc filtering of data will provide whatever conclusion you want (like a hockey stick). Climate "science" is pretty shoddy as it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is easily refuted by accurate analysis.

 

If by accurate analysis you mean throwing out 99.7% of the temperature records to only consider only a single annual high temperature per reporting spot, I disagree 99.8% that this is accurate analysis.

[Cyberyeti]

This may be more about semantics than entitling else. Some people use the term ‘believe’ to mean accept as truth without proof (or something like that). Hence, once something is proven, or has sufficient evidence in its favor, then it is no longer considered belief.

 

I consider it belief in most cases because it's only proof until somebody comes up with a counterexample due to the advance of science and it gets refined (Newtonian/Einsteinian mechanics for example)

[Cyberyeti]

Fair enough. Opinion counts too but additional information can lead to a better informed opinion. The initial FOI requests were few and collegial. It was Phil Jones of the CRU himself that came back with the regrettable "why share my data since you only want to find things wrong with it" reply that started the obfuscatory efforts of the entire CAGW cadre. Science without openly available data and methods to allow for reproducing "results" is not science.

 

Phil Jones plays at my bridge club although we haven't seen much of him since the scandal.

[PassedOut]

Arctic’s strongest sea ice breaks up for first time on record

 

The oldest and thickest sea ice in the Arctic has started to break up, opening waters north of Greenland that are normally frozen, even in summer.

 

This phenomenon – which has never been recorded before – has occurred twice this year due to warm winds and a climate-change driven heatwave in the northern hemisphere.

 

One meteorologist described the loss of ice as “scary”. Others said it could force scientists to revise their theories about which part of the Arctic will withstand warming the longest.

 

The sea off the north coast of Greenland is normally so frozen that it was referred to, until recently, as “the last ice area” because it was assumed that this would be the final northern holdout against the melting effects of a hotter planet.

And, in related news: Trump set to roll back Obama-era regulation on coal emissions

 

The Trump administration is set to unveil a proposed replacement for Obama-era climate change rules that will impose looser, state-based regulations on coal-fired power plants rather than pushing them towards closure.

 

The new plan is likely to escalate greenhouse gas emissions, compared with its predecessor, at a time when scientists have warned drastic cuts are required to avoid dangerous runaway climate change that would ravage the lives of Americans and people around the world.

 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to propose that individual states should decide how, or even if, they should stem carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants.

As his secretary of state once explained, Trump is a moron.

[Daniel1960]

If by accurate analysis you mean throwing out 99.7% of the temperature records to only consider only a single annual high temperature per reporting spot, I disagree 99.8% that this is accurate analysis.

 

I think you are overreacting a bit. Average temperatures are increasing, and have been doing so for the better part of two centuries. But just because the average is increasing, does not mean that every aspect of the temperature record is increasing. Perhaps a little science lesson is needed.

 

Global warming theory is based on the radiative absoption properties of greenhouse gases. These gases will absorb infrared radiation from solar and terrestrial sources and re-radiate in all directions. The wavelength of the IR radiation is dependent on the temperature of the irradiating object, and the absorption is based on the characteristic bands of the individual gases (yes, I am a chemist too). Many of the absorption bands are more intense in the lower temperature, higher wavelength regions in which the Earth emits. Hence absorption is greater at night than during the day. This gets accentuated during the winter months, when night is longer than the day, and amplified closer to the poles. During the winter months, the nighttime warming overwhelms daytime cooling, and warmer daytime temperatures occur also (the days warm less, but start at a higher temperature). During the summer months, the daytime absorption increases and in the high latitudes exceeds the nighttime absorption, resulting in cooler temperatures. This is seen in the Arctic temperature record whereby average winter temperatures have risen by 5C or more, while summer temperatures have decreased slightly.

 

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

 

In some areas of the midlatitudes, daytime cooling can exceed nighttime warming, resulting in decreased summer averages. In other areas, nighttime warming is enough to cause an increase in the summer average temperature. Most of the U.S. has experienced a decrease in the number of hot days (defined by the epa as greater than the 95th percentile).

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures

 

There is no need to throw out 99.7% of the temperature records, just because summertime highs are not increasing.

[johnu]

Arctic’s strongest sea ice breaks up for first time on record

 

The distinguished climate change denier Dr. Noah Kreda Bility notes that there is a proven correlation between the increase in iced tea consumption and the decrease of arctic ice which proves this has nothing to do with global warming. The loss of arctic sea ice is cyclical and will stop decreasing when the world's drinking habits change.

[PassedOut]

Dr. Noah Kreda Bility

:lol:

[Al_U_Card]

Phil Jones plays at my bridge club although we haven't seen much of him since the scandal.

Understandable. ;) The "saga" of those FOI requests (well described by numerous requestors) are likely what prompted the "release" of the e-mails that demonstrated the tribalism and collusion within the group, ergo the pseudo of the leaker "Mr. FOIA".

[Al_U_Card]

Arctic’s strongest sea ice breaks up for first time on record

 

 

And, in related news: Trump set to roll back Obama-era regulation on coal emissions

 

 

As his secretary of state once explained, Trump is a moron.

The Guardian is the Fox News of climate alarmism. Better to look at the actual published peer-reviewed paper (if their "report" is based on one...) to see what was actually shown and to see just how much the alarmists twisted it around.