Conservatives and climate change

[jj]

1. a) Who has polled a representative sample of the Earth's population?
b) Scientifically literate people believe in glacial cycles.

a) is asked and answered, and answered again below.
b) is completely misphrased, scientifically literate people CONCLUDE, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, that the past has held glacial cycles.

Just like they CONCLUDE, based on the EVIDENCE, that AGW has at least some validity.

2. The problem is, most people, in fact ALL people, lack the first-hand knowledge of facts and the ability to systematically deduce from these facts and the relevant theoretical constructions the outcomes of changes such as the predicted increase in fossil fuel consumption.

Now that is utter stuff and nonsense.
I'm sure even you are able to execute a tabletop experiment that shows the effects of CO2 on IR absorbtion and reflection.
I'm also sure that you can read instruments that show the historical trends of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere.l

Therefore, you, yourself, can easily show that some AGW effect absolutely, positively must exist.

Your assertion that "nobody knows" is not only a claim to fact that you can't support, but oen that even you could refute from your own home, assuming you can afford a quartz-glass container, vinegar, baking soda, a black painted bit of metal, a heat lamp, and a thermometer.

That is, unless you think mechanical devices that measure the level of CO2 in the atmosphere are in on the conspiracy... (that's the one thing you'd have to take from the literature, the concentration of CO2 in the last century)

... irrelevant argument-spamming removed...


The social network analysis that Wikipedia claimed was plagarized is not the first critique of incestuous academic culture. See Wade and Broad, Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science, Martin Anderson, Imposters in the Temple, and Charles Sykes, Profscam.

Oh, now that's lame, muddy the water with the lame old claim of "somebody else did it". What's more, the field is:

One of these (I don't remember which) reported the result of an experiment which a couple of professors of Sociology conducted.

Sociology. Right.

They copied published papers in social science, changed the authors' names and institutional affiliations from Mr. Big at Prestige Ivy U to Mr. Nobody at Alfalfa Community College, and resubmitted them. "Peer" reviewers shredded the papers. Sometimes, even journals that had originally published the work later rejected the same paper (without noticing the copywork).

Soft "sciences" somehow prove that a meter is part of a conspiracy.

I haven't seen many sociologists publishing hard data on climate. This is just an attempt at well poisoning and guilt by association. Propaganda on top of propaganda.

According to one Math professor friend of mine, the American Mathematical Society tried blind peer review, where editors stripped names and institutional affiliations from papers that they sent to reviewers. It did not last. The problem was not that reviewers passes shoddy worked but that the reviewers did not appropriately revere the submitted fingernail clippings from Mr. Big at Prestige Ivy U.
I don't see a way around this, aside from the occasional outside challenge and periodic rebellion against the manipulation of peer review.

Aaah, ...according to one of your buddies...

Seriously, it is a problem. I am an editor for an IEEE Journal and I can very well see it's a problem myself, but hardly an insurmountable one. It takes an editor who is at least somewhat alert to the problem, and no more.

And this still isn't an instrument measuring the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Until you can prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that even the mechanical instruments are in on the conspiracy you avow, you'll have to absoutely stipulate that some degree of AGW must absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever, be utterly present.

So let's hear it, how do the instruments join the conspiracy?

 

[jj]

Define "a few years" because I think you really mean "a few decades". This reminds me of the quote attributed to Milton Keynes; "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?" The science has changed quite a bit since 1972 and, despite what sensationalist titbits you might dig up from Time magazine or whatever the original source is, Schneider was no more alarmist than any other scientist and within a few years changed his opinion on according to the weight of evidence that CO2 warming was going to override SO2 cooling.

So, we were right, and cut SO2 emissions, and now that's held against science.

Typical, isn't it?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Speaking of plagarism, here's a quote from American Scientist (Jan-Feb 2012), "Runaway Devils Lake", by Douglas Larson, PhD:

Like climate predictions in general, predictions about when the current lake will overflow are rife with uncertainty

which I clipped, so "Like climate predictions in general, predictions about when the current lake will overflow are rife with uncertainty". Please tell me you don't deny the science.

Apparently, unusually high precipitation over the last few years has raised the lake to near historic high levels.

In the same issue there's a laudatory review, "A Drier and Hotter Future" by Donald Worster, of a book by William deBuys, "A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest".

 

[DC]

Speaking of plagarism, here's a quote from American Scientist (Jan-Feb 2012), "Runaway Devils Lake", by Douglas Larson, PhD: which I clipped, so "Like climate predictions in general, predictions about when the current lake will overflow are rife with uncertainty". Please tell me you don't deny the science.

Apparently, unusually high precipitation over the last few years has raised the lake to near historic high levels.

In the same issue there's a laudatory review, "A Drier and Hotter Future" by Donald Worster, of a book by William deBuys, "A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest".

how much uncertainty? can you quantify it?

 

[DavidJames]

Malcolm - Keep throwing **** against the wall, maybe something will stick.

 

[jj]

Speaking of plagarism, here's a quote from American Scientist (Jan-Feb 2012), "Runaway Devils Lake", by Douglas Larson, PhD: which I clipped, so "Like climate predictions in general, predictions about when the current lake will overflow are rife with uncertainty". Please tell me you don't deny the science.

Apparently, unusually high precipitation over the last few years has raised the lake to near historic high levels.

In the same issue there's a laudatory review, "A Drier and Hotter Future" by Donald Worster, of a book by William deBuys, "A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest".

This is pure derail. Can you show me where all of the instruments that measure CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have joined the conspiracy?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Now that is utter stuff and nonsense¹.
I'm sure even you are able to execute a tabletop experiment that shows the effects of CO2 on IR absorbtion and reflection².
I'm also sure that you can read instruments that show the historical trends of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere³.

Therefore, you, yourself, can easily show that some AGW effect absolutely, positively must exist⁴.

Your assertion that "nobody knows" is not only a claim to fact that you can't support, but one that even you could refute from your own home, assuming you can afford a quartz-glass container, vinegar, baking soda, a black painted bit of metal, a heat lamp, and a thermometer.

That is, unless you think mechanical devices that measure the level of CO2 in the atmosphere are in on the conspiracy... (that's the one thing you'd have to take from the literature, the concentration of CO2 in the last century)

Oh, now that's lame, muddy the water with the lame old claim of "somebody else did it". What's more, the field is:

Sociology. Right.

Soft "sciences" somehow prove that a meter is part of a conspiracy⁵.

I haven't seen many sociologists publishing hard data on climate. This is just an attempt at well poisoning and guilt by association. Propaganda on top of propaganda.


Aaah, ...according to one of your buddies...

Seriously, it is a problem⁶. I am an editor for an IEEE Journal and I can very well see it's a problem myself, but hardly an insurmountable one. It takes an editor who is at least somewhat alert to the problem, and no more⁷.

And this still isn't an instrument measuring the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Until you can prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that even the mechanical instruments are in on the conspiracy you avow, you'll have to absoutely stipulate that some degree of AGW must absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever, be utterly present.

So let's hear it, how do the instruments join the conspiracy?⁸

1.See point #7.
2. If it's so easy, why did the AGW propagandists have to fake it?
3. If you supply the time machine, sure.
4. I don't share the conviction that those uncontaminated lab experiments must generalize to the Earth system.
5. There's also an example from basic Physics, iirc, involving repeated errors in the measured speed of light.
6. So, after that carping, you grant my point. Thanks, I guess.
7. I'd add "courtesy".
8. Confirmation bias. Temperature "adjustments" and tree ring sample selection based on what people who construct the weather stations and unearth the fossil trees expect to find.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm - Keep throwing **** against the wall, maybe something will stick.

Keep arguing in that style. It's a useful reminder.

 

[DavidJames]

Keep arguing in that style. It's a useful reminder.

My comment is as constructive as yours, although admittedly, less disingenuous.

Please continue pretending you are engaging in honest debate.

 

[lomiller]

1.See point #7.
2. If it's so easy, why did the AGW propagandists have to fake it?

Use your words.

We don’t need more links to Watts dishonesty and gibberish, if you have an argument to present then present it.

 

[DC]

1.See point #7.
2. If it's so easy, why did the AGW propagandists have to fake it?
3. If you supply the time machine, sure.
4. I don't share the conviction that those uncontaminated lab experiments must generalize to the Earth system.
5. There's also an example from basic Physics, iirc, involving repeated errors in the measured speed of light.
6. So, after that carping, you grant my point. Thanks, I guess.
7. I'd add "courtesy".
8. Confirmation bias. Temperature "adjustments" and tree ring sample selection based on what people who construct the weather stations and unearth the fossil trees expect to find.

are you doubting the radiative properties of CO²?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm also sure that you can read instruments that show the historical trends of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere.

3. If you supply the time machine, sure.

In a previous post, Malcolm Kirkpatrick said he trusted Freeman Dyson's interpretation of the science.

Here's Freeman Dyson explaining why we don't need a time machine:

There is a famous graph showing the fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it varies month by month and year by year.... It gives us our firmest and most accurate evidence of effects of human activities on our global environment. The graph is generally known as the Keeling graph because it summarizes the lifework of Charles David Keeling, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. Keeling measured the carbon dioxide abundance in the atmosphere for forty-seven years, from 1958 until his death in 2005....

....The measurements have continued after Keeling’s death, and show an unbroken record of rising carbon dioxide abundance extending over fifty years.

The Keeling graph can be seen here:

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2005/keeling/keeling_web.html

 

[BenBurch]

Denying climate change isn't part of anyone's religion. The problem is that the denial of other kinds of science in the name of religion makes conservative religious people easy fodder for climate change denial propaganda.

The Biblical literalists are easiest. Many of them have been trained from childhood to distrust scientists and most other academics.

I think you missed the humor there.

 

[BenBurch]

(Malcolm): "You mean, predictions of future climate are certain?
Climate predictions are rife with uncertainty.

Idiots who demand complete knowledge for any action will never act upon anything because the bar of complete knowledge isn't attainable for anything. Even for an idiot.

 

[BenBurch]

Malcolm - Keep throwing **** against the wall, maybe something will stick.

He'll hurt himself, and the wall won't care.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

are you doubting the radiative properties of CO²?

No idea what I'd be doubting. I have to take someone's word for it. If people who make claims for results outside my personal knowledge demonstrably lie about stuff I can check, and react with abuse to requests for data and for clarification, they lose credibility. Isn't this how most of us operate?

 

[DC]

No idea what I'd be doubting. I have to take someone's word for it. If people who make claims for results outside my personal knowledge demonstrably lie about stuff I can check, and react with abuse to requests for data and for clarification, they lose credibility. Isn't this how most of us operate?

would you take your own source's word for it?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Use your words. We don’t need more links to Watts dishonesty and gibberish, if you have an argument to present then present it.

Those purported "moons" around Jupiter? They're artifacts of the telescope. Telescopes? We doan need no stinking telescopes.

 

[BenBurch]

No idea what I'd be doubting. I have to take someone's word for it. If people who make claims for results outside my personal knowledge demonstrably lie about stuff I can check, and react with abuse to requests for data and for clarification, they lose credibility. Isn't this how most of us operate?

Let's ask you plainly; Do you accept 150 years of science that defines the transmissive and radiative properties of CO2?

Yes or no.

 

[DC]

No idea what I'd be doubting. I have to take someone's word for it. If people who make claims for results outside my personal knowledge demonstrably lie about stuff I can check, and react with abuse to requests for data and for clarification, they lose credibility. Isn't this how most of us operate?

CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science.

do you agree with it?