Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Better Loosen Up]

I haven’t posted any links to Gore or Hansen so why would I mention them? How has their scientific work been compromised? Well Gore doesn’t do any and Hansen has won prizes post-publication.

Just to be clear this is the CATO institute funded by the Koch brothers, oil billionaires.

And yet the IPCC scientists get millions of $ of funding from a government body that has everything at stake and cannot afford to be wrong, yet you have absolutely no issue with that? Right?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Didn't you know, billionaires funding groups is only an issue when it's George Soros. The Koch brothers are paragons of scientific virtue.

For those that follow the IPCC "science", the last thing you should want to be talking about is funding...

 

[Chief]

You haven't quoted or used anything from NASA which relied on Hansen's research or commentary? I beg to differ.



Wrong.

Founded in 1974 by Ed Crane a political activist, Murray Rothbard an economist and ONE of the Koch brothers.

The other one's dead isn't he?

 

[Chief]

Lol. Ch irf is in on it. His cash is in George Soro's funds.

The Greasing Train is at the station.

 

[Emptyorangeseat]

Didn't you know, billionaires funding groups is only an issue when it's George Soros. The Koch brothers are paragons of scientific virtue.

Of you understand the whole context you’d understand why it is an issue!



As soros is behind gretta and in the own video of gretta her family and publicist admit she is a scam

 

[Emptyorangeseat]

Do you think maybe data availability, collection and analysis might have changed over the last 20 years?

Why would the 2000 graph necessarily be more accurate than today’s?

Come on chief, quit dodging the question and answer the video!
After lecturing us for questioning gretta and the whole reasoning behind climate change gretta, family and her publicist admit she is a scam a fraud




Hypocrite

 

[Lethality]

Population control is floated as a solution, but what about limiting immigration? That way countries like South Sudan can't export their contribution to the climate problem to other countries. Would the climate activists be ok with this as a measure?

 

[Snake_Baker]

An example of the most dangerous idiots in this debate.

This moron fills kids heads up with this tripe.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Population control is floated as a solution, but what about limiting immigration? That way countries like South Sudan can't export their contribution to the climate problem to other countries. Would the climate activists be ok with this as a measure?

Population control is really the MAIN short term and long term solution.

Why? Simply speaking, CO2 producing organisms such as man, contribute CO2 every second. For every person born, more food and power are needed. More food means more cows and methane. More power usually means more fossil fuels are consumed and more CO2 liberated. More people mean more urban sprawl with deforestation (less CO2 consumption) and bigger cities which leads to larger heat sinks which also lead to rising temperatures

Even if we are not sure if CO2 levels are contributing to climate change, we cannot afford to wait and be wrong about it.

My problem though with the protesters is the protest is aimed at the wrong people. Australia does have a high CO2 emission per capita but our population of 25.5 million is a drop in the ocean compared to the world population. People say we need to set an example for others. Well, yes, but do we really think the main players would take notice of us? Do we really think China, India, USA or Russia is really going to worry what little Australia does? Of course, they won't. This is the dilemma. We take a stand but it does nothing and probably costs us a lot in setting up, especially as the renewable energy technologies are not quite ready to take over totally from fossil fuels.

The world needs to do something together. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen soon.

So we can protest, gnash our teeth, scream and rant and rave. We can have our children cry and throw themselves to the ground. But this is all a waste of time and energy and all it does is cause people to be stuck in traffic spewing out more greenhouse gases than they need to because they could have reached their destination hours earlier and switched off their motor vehicle.

Free speech is important but it is much more effective when it is directed in a way that leads to the desired outcome. Directing it to our politicians unfortunately does not solve the problem. I wish it would. I wish Australia could solve the world's problems. I even wish the world would stop and listen to us. Whether we like it or not, we are insignificant players in this world although we must continue dialogue with all world powers as we are all in this together.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

An example of the most dangerous idiots in this debate.

This moron fills kids heads up with this tripe.

And to think this guy is teaching this crap directly to students. If it were my children, i'd be removing them from the school immediately and reporting the teacher to the relative authorities

 

[Snake_Baker]

And to think this guy is teaching this crap directly to students. If it were my children, i'd be removing them from the school immediately and reporting the teacher to the relative authorities

Imagine if an English teacher that was a Christian or a Muslim went about filling kids heads up with apocalyptic drivel?

They'd be run out of the school.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Imagine if an English teacher that was a Christian or a Muslim went about filling kids heads up with apocalyptic drivel?

They'd be run out of the school.

For me, it's got nothing to do with race or religion. This guy is a complete nutjob no matter how you wish to paint him

 

[Tyler Durden007]

And to think this guy is teaching this crap directly to students. If it were my children, i'd be removing them from the school immediately and reporting the teacher to the relative authorities

lol, report to the relative authorities?! They’re all backing the doom prophets like this goon! They’d give him a medal and report you to DHS!

 

[Arkangel]

Because it's been adjusted. The raw data doesn't suit the polemic.



http://landscapesandcycles.net/why-unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-.html

Thanks. After doing a bit of reading, it seems like the homogenisation explanation is (partly) right, but involves something different from what is suggested in that quote. If I understand this paper correctly, it looks like data from nearby stations is only used when there is a lot of internal inconsistency in the recordings of an individual station. For instance, if station x records a monthly temperature that is 20 degrees different from its average, then it may be corrected with data from nearby station y; but if station x is 20 degrees different from nearby stations x, y, and z, nothing happens.

The other part of the difference between the figure and the data is explained at one of the links you posted. Basically, the early part of the data series that looked like there was a large temperature decline came from estimations, rather than actual observations. The current data only contain the observations themselves, which didn’t begin at that station until 1903. (Goodness knows where the estimations preceding that date came from!)

Anyway, I’ve now learnt something today.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Thanks. After doing a bit of reading, it seems like the homogenisation explanation is (partly) right, but involves something different from what is suggested in that quote. If I understand this paper correctly, it looks like data from nearby stations is only used when there is a lot of internal inconsistency in the recordings of an individual station. For instance, if station x records a monthly temperature that is 20 degrees different from its average, then it may be corrected with data from nearby station y; but if station x is 20 degrees different from nearby stations x, y, and z, nothing happens.

The other part of the difference between the figure and the data is explained at one of the links you posted. Basically, the early part of the data series that looked like there was a large temperature decline came from estimations, rather than actual observations. The current data only contain the observations themselves, which didn’t begin at that station until 1903. (Goodness knows where the estimations preceding that date came from!)

Anyway, I’ve now learnt something today.

I'll just add that global warming is not something that should be taken lightly, but you should ignore just about every layperson who takes a strong position with it, due to the fact that they are politically motivated and are not scientifically equipped to conceptualise the multi layered dynamics that are required to have a deep understanding of this incredibly complex matter.

The outright deniers are no better than the enviro-zealots. Stay away from both.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Paper out of Finland

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

 

[medusala]

Paper out of Finland

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

But the science is settled! SCIENCE!!!!


"The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scientific literature. The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highestones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. The majority of the papersare using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation."

 

[Arkangel]

I'll just add that global warming is not something that should be taken lightly, but you should ignore just about every layperson who takes a strong position with it, due to the fact that they are politically motivated and are not scientifically equipped to conceptualise the multi layered dynamics that are required to have a deep understanding of this incredibly complex matter.

The outright deniers are no better than the enviro-zealots. Stay away from both.

Yes, that’s pretty much the conclusion I’ve come too as well. I’m a doctorally-educated, active researcher (in a field that is about as far from climate science as it’s possible to be; albeit one that relies heavily on computational modelling of complex, interactive systems), and have done my best to keep in touch with at least some of the research on climate change. Nonetheless, it’s abundantly clear that my knowledge of the literature is so limited as to make my opinions on it little better than guesses.

 

[Arkangel]

Paper out of Finland

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

So having just said that my opinions are little better than guesses, I think this pre-print is awful—on general scientific grounds, rather than specific content grounds. The authors don’t seem to know what “experimental” means (hint: it involves experiments), continuously insist they are “proving” this and that, don’t provide any source for their key data, basically only cite themselves (i.e., no efforts to compare their findings to the literature more broadly), and seem to have confused correlation for causation. I’m guessing there’s a good reason this isn’t published: You’d probably have to pay a bogus, non-peer-reviewed journal to put it out.

(On the plus side, at least they seem to have written it in LaTeX...)

 

[Chief]

So having just said that my opinions are little better than guesses, I think this pre-print is awful—on general scientific grounds, rather than specific content grounds. The authors don’t seem to know what “experimental” means (hint: it involves experiments), continuously insist they are “proving” this and that, don’t provide any source for their key data, basically only cite themselves (i.e., no efforts to compare their findings to the literature more broadly), and seem to have confused correlation for causation. I’m guessing there’s a good reason this isn’t published: You’d probably have to pay a bogus, non-peer-reviewed journal to put it out.

(On the plus side, at least they seem to have written it in LaTeX...)

This is why we laypeople rely on good science communicators.

It's an issue that effects all of us and generations to come. If there is a, say, 3% chance that the human race will be brought to near extinction then you will be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't want to spend resources on a solution.

Case in point, the nuclear weapons threat. We spend resources on making sure these things are kept out of the hands of the really psychotic states. There is a huge, expensive apparatus of international diplomacy to ensure we talk before we fight. Billions in foreign aid flows around the world to ensure our neighbours don't get into such a desperate situation that they start shooting at us.

It's full of waste and doesn't always work, but its better than nothing.

To most people, even an inefficient effort is better than the alternative.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The underlying notion that polluters are purely driven by self interest, yet supposedly ignore purportedly solid scientific claims that would ensure their own annihilation, is the ideologically inconsistent Mastodon in the room.

 

[Chief]

The underlying notion that polluters are purely driven by self interest, yet supposedly ignore purportedly solid scientific claims that would ensure their own annihilation, is the ideologically inconsistent Mastodon in the room.

You're making the mistake in thinking markets are always driven by rationality. Until the effort is factored into profitability then action will be scarce.

We had a price signal that, from what I recall, seemed to be working. Abbott removed it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You're making the mistake in thinking markets are always driven by rationality. Until the effort is factored into profitability then action will be scarce.

We had a price signal that, from what I recall, seemed to be working. Abbott removed it.

In regards to this specific topic, you are invested in political parochialism to the point where you believe its drive emerges from the belief that definitive science supporting imminent catastrophe has been tabled.................it simply hasn't, and the science community is being taken way out of context by both sides of the paradigm.

As for any reductionist solutions forget them. When and/or if it gets strongly presented with an overwhelming scientific consensus then it will be promptly acted upon (e.g. the ozone layer). Did people give up refrigeration and air conditioning? Hell no, humans (scientists) technologically devised ways around the problem.

Human beings are technologically driven species and have been scientifically based terraformers for millennia. It's a fundamental trait of our behavioral phenotype, and evolution is only going to drive it to a higher prominence.

 

[Tyler Durden007]

This is why we laypeople rely on good science communicators.

It's an issue that effects all of us and generations to come. If there is a, say, 3% chance that the human race will be brought to near extinction then you will be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't want to spend resources on a solution.

Case in point, the nuclear weapons threat. We spend resources on making sure these things are kept out of the hands of the really psychotic states. There is a huge, expensive apparatus of international diplomacy to ensure we talk before we fight. Billions in foreign aid flows around the world to ensure our neighbours don't get into such a desperate situation that they start shooting at us.

It's full of waste and doesn't always work, but its better than nothing.

To most people, even an inefficient effort is better than the alternative.

The screaming paradox for me is that transition to as much renewable energy away from fossils and burning other shit as soon as possible is absolutely necessary... but for real reasons not socialist warrior invented ones (the Church or Climateology).

Those reasons are... A) they pollute and all the cascading effects that occur as a result, and B) they will run out... the global supply chain around energy reliant on fossil fuels is immense and fragile, it touches everything. You'd hardly have to write a dissertation on the effects of it collapsing or stalling, anyone could work that out.

 

[Chief]

In regards to this specific topic, you are invested in political parochialism to the point where you believe its drive that the definitive science supporting imminent catastrophe has been tabled.................it simply isn't.

As for any reductionist solutions forget them. When and/or if it gets strongly presented with an overwhelming scientific consensus then it will be promptly acted upon (e.g. the ozone layer). Did people give up refrigeration and air conditioning? Hell no, humans (scientists( technologically devised ways around the problem.

Human beings are technologically driven species and have been scientifically based terraformers for millennia. It's a fundamental trait of our behavioral phenotype, and evolution is only going to drive it to a higher prominence.

Mechanics hoarded their old airco gas because it was more efficient and they didn't want to have to change their own cars over.

Many large companies are hoarding their old ways because they don't want the possibility of being left at a commercial disadvantage.

We already have a minority who don't want any Australian action at all because "we are not a big enough contributor".

Well, shit, I hardly use any electricity so why should I pay my bill? Let someone else pay for my food and mortgage: I don't make up a large enough share of the demand for those services to make a difference.

It gets ludicrous after a while.