Conservatives and climate change

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What would be the point of discussing solutions with someone who denies the existence of the problem?

If people who assert that there is a problem insist on expensive solutions when cheap solutions will work, it's reasonable, seems to me, to suspect their motives, and so their claims about their data and analyses if these people do not make these data and analyses public.

 

[johnny karate]

If people who assert that there is a problem insist on expensive solutions when cheap solutions will work...

Who is insisting on "expensive solutions" over cheap ones? And what "cheap solutions" are there that are as equally efficacious as their supposedly expensive counterparts?

... it's reasonable, seems to me, to suspect their motives, and so their claims about their data and analyses if these people do not make these data and analyses public.

Why do keep insisting that the data supporting man-made climate change is a secret?

 

[DC]

Since the case for AGW depends on many different threads of evidence, the cases against that evidence are numerous. For example:...
Proponents of the AGW theory claim that recently observed warming is unprecedented. Against this, critics offer the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period. Proponents assert that the Medieval warm period either did not happen or was localized to Northwest Eurasia (Europe). Against this claim are studies of lake sediments in China, South America, and (iirc) the American Southwest that find cooling during the European Medieval warm period.
Some proponents of AGW (Mann, et. al.) used tree-ring data as proxy thermometers in constructing the hockey-stick graph. Steve McIntyre demonstrated that one of these reconstructions depended on very few samples and ignored an available, wider sample from the same area that moved the trend in the opposite direction (the "Yamal chronology", apparently the people who used the data cherry-picked it to get the trend they wanted to see). Against the AGW claim that tree rings (of some species) make reliable thermometer proxies, skeptics make several objections: "climate", as assessed by a few ancient tree trunks buried in a sandbank, may be quite local, and for the time that tree lived, locally unusally warm or cold, or wet or dry. A herd of reindeer might have fertilized them, or stunted them with salt. Etc. Sample size matters, here, as do assumptions about the relation between ring width and other variables (soil chemistry, water, etc.) for various species.

Trakar observed that many disciplines contribute to this discussion (at a professional level). No one has all the relevant expertise. Experts in one discipline have to trust experts in other disciplines for their analyses. Experts often have to trust other experts in their own discipline when it comes to collection of raw data, since field work is time-consuming and no one can collect buried trees and measure tree rings from every continent from beds dating back to the end of the last Ice Age, and no one can personaly monitor every thermometer and remote sensor that supplies current temperature data. People who use the raw data have to trust the field workers who supply that data. With their behavior as revealed in the leaked UEA emails and elsewhere, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Steven Schneider, and Kevin Trenberth have forefeited that trust.

oh well i have seen nothing that would dispute AGW. Still waiting.

 

[citizenzen]

You need to show a tangible benefit for proposed costs.

Could anyone have shown the tangible benefits of strengthening the levees in New Orleans before hurricane Katrina hit?

Sometimes being prepared and taking precautions has to come about even when the ultimate scope and scale of a problem is not fully known or could be fully known.

 

[Travis]

Wait a minute! Are you saying that the Maldives are not in imminent danger of destruction due to global warming and sea level rise?

If you find out your house has termites do propose to never do anything about it simply because the house won't collapse into a pile of sawdust the next day?

 

[Trakar]

Huh. Your reference cites growth in cm per year, where ocean rise is one or two mm per year. Have you considered working for your (perceived) opposition?



Now you are falling for, and repeating, propaganda lies. Step a bit back and sort it out and reconsider.

Here's what I'm talking about.

• Malcom: They disagree with your assessment of the implications. That is all.
  
• DC: What is their evidence against the evidence of AGW theory?

DC tries to redirect the discussion from "Implications" - a subject of public policy, and hence the politics forum - to "scientific evidence" - a subject appropriate for the science forum. And that's already been shut down by the moderators...

The discussion of Climate/AGW science is not "shut down" on the science boards, it has been moderated to limit the derails and personal attacks. Stick to proper discussion formatting and you can discuss the issue without any real difficulty.

 

[stokes234]

I agree that you would not be interested in my inability to follow your made up presumptions as to what you impute that I imply.

Are you really trying to claim that when you said:

because, dude, there's big money in it and you could get some. Think Solyndra, Chevy Volt, many, many others....

Just scare the people till they look the other way, then they won't see the scams. And get your thinking fixed, don't show any doubt. Doubt's a killer, see.

You need that certainty. What was it called? Yeah...git yourself some of that "excessive certainty". And a Prius.

You weren't trying to imply that money is skewing the scientific consensus on climate change? Well, sure then, whatever you say

Anyway, it's rather laughable that you'd even make a statement that a comment about there being a lot of money in a carbon tax (etc).

A tax is NOTHING BUT MONEY. When it is apply to a large number of people, it is NOTHING BUT A LOT OF MONEY.

My statement was basically that there was more money in avoiding any form of carbon tax as well as maintaining subsidies for oil and gas companies than to be made from renewables, which isn't "laughable", it's addressing the issue accurately and directly. Of course, you can end this part of debate by simply telling everyone here that you don't actually believe that the money involved in the renewables industry is behind the scientific consensus on AGW.

 

[stokes234]

One of the things that bugs me most about the climate change alarmists is that they talk as if the threat is imminent and world-destroying, while they act as if it's no big deal. Obviously Al Gore has been beat to death over his personal carbon hypocrisy, but consider these two stories:

Climate change castaways consider move to Australia :

Sounds like pretty imminent disaster, right? Then why was President Nasheed breaking ground on a new airport terminal last month?

Call me an idiot, but if my island was getting swallowed up by the sea, I think the first thing i'd build would be more airports.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

oh well i have seen nothing that would dispute AGW. Still waiting.

CO₂ is a trace component of the atmosphere. The theoretical relation between CO₂ and atmospheric temperature relies on assumptions about various feedback mechanisms. The predicted empirical relation between pre-historic CO₂ levels and prehistoric ambient surface air temperature is a hypothesis that needs empirical support. Ice cores provide reasonably accurate measurements of prehistoric atmosphere composition. Tree rings do not serve as reliable proxy thermometers, for several reasons.

 

[DC]

CO₂ is a trace component of the atmosphere. The theoretical relation between CO₂ and atmospheric temperature relies on assumptions about various feedback mechanisms. The predicted empirical relation between pre-historic CO₂ levels and prehistoric ambient surface air temperature is a hypothesis that needs empirical support. Ice cores provide reasonably accurate measurements of prehistoric atmosphere composition. Tree rings do not serve as reliable proxy thermometers, for several reasons.

yes i have seen many such claims, but never seen anything that would dispute AGW.

 

[geni]

CO₂ is a trace component of the atmosphere. The theoretical relation between CO₂ and atmospheric temperature relies on assumptions about various feedback mechanisms.

Nope. You can show a relationship by working with an ideal black body if you really want to. Or you can look at venus.

 

[stokes234]

CO₂ is a trace component of the atmosphere. The theoretical relation between CO₂ and atmospheric temperature relies on assumptions about various feedback mechanisms. The predicted empirical relation between pre-historic CO₂ levels and prehistoric ambient surface air temperature is a hypothesis that needs empirical support. Ice cores provide reasonably accurate measurements of prehistoric atmosphere composition. Tree rings do not serve as reliable proxy thermometers, for several reasons.

Maybe you should go and tell this to the 97% of climate scientists who believe you to be wrong. Despite spending their lives studying the field, maybe they simply haven't considered the point that CO2 is a "trace gas", or that tree rings are unreliable

 

[mhaze]

Are you really trying to claim that when you said:

.....

You weren't trying to imply that money is skewing the scientific consensus on climate change? Well, sure then, whatever you say

.....

Since nowhere in the post did I mention "Science" or "consensus" or even "climate change" ..... you can just roll your eyes....just roll them everytime you make some thing up.

Fair enough?

 

[mhaze]

The discussion of Climate/AGW science is not "shut down" on the science boards, it has been moderated to limit the derails and personal attacks. Stick to proper discussion formatting and you can discuss the issue without any real difficulty.

And if you stick to discussion of politics and public policy issues related to climate, and not derail this thread into the sciency stuff, you'll be able to discuss the issues of the OP here just fine.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
. . . (snip) . . . Looking through a juicy few cgate emails, I find this comment by a noted and prominent climate scientist:

...the good old precautionary principle must be guiding our effort. During the cold war, enormous resources were put into missiles, airplanes, and other military equipment to check Soviet expansion and make containment policy credible - in the firm hope that all this equipment would never have to be used. And it wasn't, and nobody complained about the costs. Now, in the face of a different, but clearly distinguishable global threat "more dangerous than terrorism" the cost issue surfaces all the time. Somehow we all need to help in creating an understanding that the threat of global change is real and that we need to develop a new paradigm of looking at the world and the future: this is not just a scientific or technological issue. It involves important philosophical and ethical considerations where some fundamental value systems have to be challenged. . . . ( snip) . . .

Concerning the hilited (bold face) areas: And the name of this noted climate scientist is? And the document in which this quote appears is? These citations are important for judging the validity of your assertions.

mhaze: Are you going to answer my question?​

Restating the above question in plain english.

Mhaze, are you going to answer my question? I didn't notice that someone else had already answered it, and it didn't occur to me that it would immediately come up on a Google search. I need lots of help. After you help me, then I'll be better able to use my limited abilities to judge you, and judge the validity of your assertions. If I don't find enough stuff to be critical about, I'll just ask you more questions, okay? Oh, and I didn't notice that you didn't make any assertions, but just quoted a prominent scientist. I really need some help here.

<Serious> I'm sure you can see why I can't help but make fun of this stuff sometimes.​

 

[johnny karate]

And if you stick to discussion of politics and public policy issues related to climate, and not derail this thread into the sciency stuff, you'll be able to discuss the issues of the OP here just fine.

One cannot discuss the value of the politics and policy issues surrounding the climate change without addressing the validity of the science supporting it.

You - and the other science-deniers in this thread - want to play the rather disingenuous game of ignoring the scientific data (because you know it's not on your side) and just simply attacking any solution that might be offered.

Once again, I pose the question: What is the point of discussing solutions with someone who denies the existence of the problem?

Also, I find this:

sciency stuff

to be hilariously revealing of how you approach the subject.

 

[mhaze]

"One cannot discuss the value of the politics and policy issues surrounding the climate change without addressing the validity of the science supporting it".

Well, that's a complete and obvious lie. Consider for example, if an essay question was asked in a course on public policy. Say .... on the subject of "The Maldives".

• Student A blathers on about the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere.
  
• Student B discusses public policy and the Maldives.

Student A gets an F, Student B gets an A.

Next...

 

[Trakar]

Since the case for AGW depends on many different threads of evidence, the cases against that evidence are numerous. For example:...
Proponents of the AGW theory claim that recently observed warming is unprecedented. Against this, critics offer the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period. Proponents assert that the Medieval warm period either did not happen or was localized to Northwest Eurasia (Europe)...

Please quote or reference, in this thread or more generally on this board, those proponents and their statements so that we may compare their actual statements to the science and confirm the issues you raise. They don't sound like anything I've heard anyone familiar with the science say in the last decade or so. Back in the late eighties and nineties there was significant evidence supporting a more strongly localized warming in NW Europe and a mixed bag of temps. elsewhere. Prior to the seventies the overwhelming majority of our records and researches were limited to and focussed on the European records and they were assumed to be generally reflective of the world in total. The science, for the better part of a decade or so now, has found that a greatly heterogenous and temporally discontinuous, mild global warming did occur during the span of the late 10th century to around the mid 11th century. None of this speaks to or addresses, however, modern climate change issues.

Some proponents of AGW (Mann, et. al.) used tree-ring data as proxy thermometers in constructing the hockey-stick graph.

Tree-ring data was only one type of proxy data used to estimate paleotemps. This type of data is not unique to Mann, and Mann's temp graphing has both proven to be rigorous and greatly unchanged even if you completely eliminate tree-ring data from the considered data.

Steve McIntyre demonstrated that one of these reconstructions depended on very few samples and ignored an available, wider sample from the same area that moved the trend in the opposite direction.

McIntyre applied a since thoroughly discredited, skewed distortion analysis to the Mann 1999 data in an attempt to refute Mann's findings. The most recent analysis discrediting McIntyre's conspiracy theory and summarizing the pseudoscience of McIntyre's analyses is given in:
"Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence" (Wahl 2007)

(the "Yamal chronology," apparently the people who used the data cherry-picked it to get the trend they wanted to see).

Unfounded and unsupported conspiracy mongering.

Against the AGW claim that tree rings (of some species) make reliable thermometer proxies, skeptics make several objections: "climate", as assessed by a few ancient tree trunks buried in a sandbank, may be quite local, and for the time that tree lived, locally unusally warm or cold, or wet or dry. A herd of reindeer might have fertilized them, or stunted them with salt. Etc. Sample size matters, here, as do assumptions about the relation between ring width and other variables (soil chemistry, water, etc.) for various species.

Distorted handwaving harrumphing and unsupported fanciful musings attacking findings that you are predisposed to reject based upon perceived ideological consequences and implications, is indeed the hallmark of pseudoscience. Thank you for the example.

With their behavior as revealed...

inferred and disingenuously surmised

in the leaked UEA emails...

as sans contextually quote-mined from carefully selected and criminally stolen private communication systems

and elsewhere, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones,...

and as further distorted and lied about in bizarro conspiracy theories on pseudoscience political blogs

Michael Mann, Steven Schneider, and Kevin Trenberth have forefeited that trust.

circular irrationality

 

[stokes234]

Since nowhere in the post did I mention "Science" or "consensus" or even "climate change" ..... you can just roll your eyes....just roll them everytime you make some thing up.

Fair enough?

You're adorable.

 

[Trakar]

If people who assert that there is a problem insist on expensive solutions when cheap solutions will work, it's reasonable, seems to me, to suspect their motives, and so their claims about their data and analyses if these people do not make these data and analyses public.

In order to decide whether solutions are cheap or expensive depends upon being able to accurately assess and compare the efficacy of the various proposed "solutions" as well as knowing the ultimate risks and costs of the problem given a status quo situation.

This is a problem on several fronts if the basic science findings are being ignored and rejected and the scientists as well as anyone working on the problem are dismissed and discounted as conspiricists with a global socialism economic agenda.