Monday, November 18, 2013

Another Tea Party Defeat - Global Warming

It wasn't long ago that the concern about global warming in the US was in steep decline.  Noam Chomsky often lamented this.  Apparently the Chamber of Commerce, in conjunction with the American Petroleum Instituted, publicly announced that they had learned valuable lessons from Obama's health care PR efforts, and they intended to use these lessons to shift public opinion on global warming.  As the link above shows, it worked.  As the scientific consensus became more and more solid that global warming was happening, was caused by man, and posed a serious threat to our future, Americans at the same time were becoming less convinced.  Propaganda works.

But that seems to be changing.  Check the results of recent polling discussed here.  Even the red states are getting it, with strong majorities recognizing that the above mentioned scientific consensus is true.

The right wing is always wrong, and always wrong in the same direction.  Helping the rich get richer and imposing the costs on the poor.  On a lot of issues the public isn't buying it despite the intense propaganda.


Jonathan said...

One interesting aspect of this topic is it also shows that in general, the public is not very rational when it comes to forming these type of opinions. I think this is just human nature. I believe the link you cite indicates that 75% of the public believes in global warming, but places where there has recently been drought, that climbs to over 85%. But as you know, you can't draw a straight line between a specific drought / storm / etc and climate change. The takeaway here, is what we already know - if you want to persuade people of something, they have to feel some sort of impact or have an experience, otherwise it's just theory.

And for the sake of Ex and others who might take what I just wrote as some backhanded defense for the climate skeptic, let me clarify that those folks who are experiencing drought conditions might indeed be coming to the correct conclusion on climate change, and perhaps this climate change is indeed causing the drought - but there is no way for them to know this with certainty. Most likely they didn't objectively take another look at the evidence, but were instead were persuaded by anecdotal evidence. If the next few years they experience additional flooding, how many might switch to being skeptical on climate change, even if the climate models might predict more variation in weather, not just higher temperatures?

Chad said...

I am a bit confused about your position - it is not very open for discussion. Here are the reasons why Global Warming is wrong - please refute if you can.

(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only

(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s

(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.

(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.

(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.

(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios

(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.

(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.

(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.

Chad said...

(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10

(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a land falling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s

(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.

(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen

(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.

(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.

Chad said...

(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.

(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.

(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.

(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.

(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.

(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years

(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.

(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998

(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.

(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.

Chad said...

In regards to the article - I do want the names, numbers, demographics to vet - I also would like to know how the question was posed.

I believe in Climate Change as well - it changes, has changed and will continue to change forever. What I do not believe and evidence is on my side (especially recently) that it is primarily driven by human beings. Our part is but a fraction of a fraction to what happens in climate - just a pin head on a elephant.

Jonathan said...


Assuming your comments were directed toward me and not Jon, I guess my point wasn't so much to defend a particular side on global warming, but rather to point out that according to Jon's link, so many people who have experienced drought lately are more inclined to now accept global warming as true. What are your thoughts on that? Would you agree that most people do not form their belief on global warming based on science?

Jonathan said...


It looks like we were posting at the same time. I'm a bit surprised that you are so skeptical of the claims on the viewpoints of those polled now believing in global warming.
That seems to imply that you find the claims as potentially counter to your view.

I would have thought you might have in fact seen it as evidence that people are poor judges of evidence, and base their opinions on poor logic i.e. "it's hot this year, so there must be global warming".

Jon said...

Chad, let's first note where these bullet points are coming from. Joseph D'Aleo, who wrote the bullet points you copied, has signed the following confession of faith:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

In other words, forget what scientists say. God is going to take care of us. At the end of the day he simply has a faith based position that says global warming is not an issue. There's really no reasoning with people like that. You can't refute faith with evidence because it's not based on evidence, but faith.

Notice the type of argument offered. "Warming is not global, it's only in the northern hemisphere." This is not an argument. It would be just like me saying "Clearly there is global warming because warming is in both the southern and northern hemispheres." It's a bare assertion with zero offered in terms of supporting evidence. There's nothing to refute. No argument has been made. It's an assertion.

It's happening, it's caused by man, and it's a serious threat to species survival. That's the scientific consensus. You can overturn a consensus, but you really have to be prepared to do some heavy lifting. Make a controversial claim if you like, but back it up to the hilt. No BS. The fact that they don't do it tells you something. I mean, if I'm going to walk up to you and tell you gravitational theory isn't right I'd better have more than an assertion. These comments fail the initial test.

Examinator said...

Take a look at this.
note some of the comments

Sadly you are spot on. Their perspective is way too narrow. That doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong, just arrived a by unscientific means. The reality is a single event is simply a data point and on it's own meaningless. However, recent events by their unusual intensity are CONSISTENT with ACC. They do not in and of themselves prove it.
Notwithstanding the sheer number of them is highly suggestive (no more).
IMO where the deniers go wrong is that they tend to focus on the singular rather than the CUMULATIVE evidence.
As I've said there are NUMEROUS sources of data (many disciplines end even more specialisations) that when added together the case for ACC is all but proven.
What non science literate people (NSLP) have problems with is the * scientific* meaning of the word a “theory” as in the theory of ACC and Evolution. It means a complicated answer that fully explains a certain collection of related observations. These same NSLP then tend to look at data points as absolutes and falsely assume “therefore disprove one observation (data point) and the theory is invalid”
The trend is still valid IF a data point isn't accurate.
Again it is unwise to rule out an observation if one doesn't understand (by being NSL) the methodology, *Complicated * math, their strengths, weaknesses et al. Likewise the opposition to many 'papers' from within the Scientific community are often on highly technical issues. Those objections may invalidate SOME ELEMENT(S) OF THE CONCLUSION but NOT effect the ALL important trend.
Keep in mind that ACC (AGW if you must) is made up of 1000's of separate and independent observation across 30+ disciplines and goodness Knows how many specializations. The chance of most of them being wrong is obscenely unlikely.
BTW just because a scientist make an error or disagrees with a 'theory' or paper/ set of conclusion doesn't invalidate either entirely. e.g. Einstein could never accept Quantum Theory but you'd be silly to claim his E=MC2 Theory is wrong.
As the above URL for Chad shows one needs to be careful on either side of the fence.

Examinator said...

On the site you posted if you follow their links there is a video of a right wing spin doctor who is behind some of the 'surveys' and if one examines his logic he is toxic. The puts forward that the “great unwashed” should email scientists and tell them what they think …..why? Science is is fact based and by definition is based on facts and “uncommon” (educated) sense rather than consensus of “the great unwashed” (his words). As if these scientist s aren't aware that the masses don't necessarily like what they find. He went on to call scientists 'dark' influencers Or words to that sense. He also accused them of being public figures i.e. public celebrities(sic). Since when? They are people dong their jobs Would he publish the private email addresses of the unelected hierarchy or employees in the GOP? He threatened o release emails of any public(sic) person HE DISAGREED WITH! What a load of BS, Of course he meant to intimidate the scientists!
This isn't refuting the theory merely intimidation …. side stepping an inconvenient set of Facts.
I mention this here because it goes to confirming the level of fact free opposition to a clear reality.
PS I didn't intend on commenting but I saw my name and needed to clarify. And the topic interests me.

BTW Chad I don't know where you are getting your perceptions from But The cumulative evidence from the Southern Hemisphere is that ACC is definitely effecting us
One other point of Note is that ACC will NOT effect everywhere in the same way because of the differences in topography.

Chad said...

Well Jon if your a scientist who is interested in grants, money and getting published in that community are you really going to buck the system?

Second - you picked one point, how about all the other bullet points. Like the WHO reports - the science was designed to support the cause not to determine the best actual health care. Ignore all evidence that contradicts, skip peer review and use only the data and plug that into an already faulty/wrong computer model and when that fails to produce the expected results - change the narrative, but it is still right.

Jonathan - I was not replying to you sir. I think I agree with you if I am understanding. People have been told repeatedly that global warming is real and like Jon here - don't you dare say otherwise lemming. It is happening (despite evidence otherwise) and your absolutely wrong so surrender citizen so when asked many people (I believe) say they believe in it for a couple reasons.

First - brainwashed
Second - they want to appear sensitive to the "hot social issue"
Third - the format of the question is misleading
Forth - the poll was taken in a demographic area already sensitive to or believe in global warming.

Jon said...

Ex, yes I did see that video you referenced, and it shows the lengths these people must go. That can't win with science so they move the debate to other domains. Threats, intimidation. They're good at that.

Chad, I'm just not going to bother to try to refute the faith based assertions of a member of the church of global warming denial. An assertion is not an argument.

Take a look at this though, and it's something I've heard a lot about. This article discusses inquiries put together by 70 people who manage $3 trillion in assets. Financial managers. They understand what you don't. Global warming is real enough that they need to plan their investment strategy on it. They're asking fossil fuel industries to address the costs of global warming.

I mean, it's kind of disgusting that global warming is an afterthought until it starts to threaten the wealth of the powerful, but that's what we have here. People that are good at making money in our economy know that this is real and they are planning for it. The business community knows that it is real, though they still pump out propaganda to The Blaze and other right wing sources because for now status quo is profitable. At some point denying reality can become unprofitable. If investors are banking on global warming does this mean it's time for you to accept that it is real?

Examinator said...

Jon, Chad
Read this and the blurb of their funding ... both put pay to Chad's theories.
Simply put it's way more Complicated than Chad wants to satisfy his Black OR white view of the world.

Chad said...

Not sure I understand JC - are you saying that since the author believes in God the direct data questioning methods and results are invalid? That seems short sited.

On the other article - I got a big time chuckle actually. I was smoking cigars and drinking scotch with just about as high of an exec at one of the biggies this week. Obviously your author has spent zero time inside the board room - he is the one making assertions. Told straight from the horses mouth - they (oil/energy companies) do these risk analysis not out of concern for global warming, but risk management on what these nut cases cost them. Another words - talk the talk to get these nuts off their backs! The strategy is to say they are concerned, they do their own investigation (not using brain washed scientists or tainted firms) to do their own "global warming" risk analysis.

This is just posturing for the camera - saying they are concerned, but really not so much. The development of alternate energy sources however is important to them - if they are the first to develop something that satisfies the crazy and can make money - win/win.

As I said - climate change is absolutely real - I am a firm believer. It has been ever changing since Earth was born. The earth was ice, it was fire and it was everything in between before man touched a toe. What I don't believe is how much man is effecting the change that is occurring.

Gronk Grimm said...

I have a hard time comprehending the wasted effort of the debate between "left" and "right". Who created this never ending fight between such utterly similar forces?

I suggest that the debate is a diversion. A diversion to exhaust us from seeing the truth.

After all, what was the difference between Hitler and Stalin?

One being extreme "right" and the other being extreme "left". Yet we still argue for one or the other? How about the option of neither? The option of humanity?

And if global warming is a scientific matter, why does the left advocate it and the right oppose it? When science is so fundamentally apolitical? Are there any other scientific "facts" that have a similar polarity based on a polarized political belief?

I think if humanity really wants to advance itself, it needs to get around this manufactured debate that will never end, the left vs right debate, that renders us all into impotent pawns, subject to easy manipulation.

When I listen to leftists and rightists, I see they are both blinded by their own propaganda and both equally stretch their beliefs to the point of eventually being illogical. As soon as you declare yourself neither, (it is indeed possible), you will clearly see the incredible hypocracy of it all and feel like a complete and utter fool for having temporarily fallen for it.

And I used the term "belief" as your debate above uses this exact word over and over. Belief is a religious term but is now a fundamental term used in modern politics. And with the decline of western organized religion, it seems that the sheep cannot do without it, and have herded to the new churches of enlightenment, with their equally false prophets of "left" and "right". The fervour is oh so remarkably similar...

The scenery changes but the puppet strings are still being handled by the same puppeteers. We all have access to scissors, we should use them.

Chad said...

Gronk - you couldn't be more right about the polarizing ideology with which we use as a sword and shield to argue with, but a wise man once told me that you go to your extremes to find our means.

Unfortunately politics, money and power inevitably clouds just about every topic today including science. Your right it is supposed to be empirical, it is supposed to be done without bias and be based strictly on the data, but once again an agenda/politics/power and money (plus hatred for the rich) has high jacked even science.

To my point scientists have really only been collecting data since at best the 40's - limited data at that time as the world developed new technologies to track and catalog information. It wasn't until the 60's until concentration curves came into the mix. So scientist begin collecting data - already talking about Global Warming - that was the required end result driven by a lot of money from environmentalist looking to hang a noose on their enemy. So after the tech boom the first climate prediction models come out - its nearly universally embraced as an absolute - these results are not to be questioned - by this date in the future (2013) all these things will happen in all these places - it didn't happen and it wasn't even close - missed it by a mile and a half.

When a community (the scientists) are only able to use 50 years of data when a planet has been around for millions of years, ignoring certain data pieces that don't fit the narrative and then to fall so short of the prediction models as they have while causing enormous financial damage along the way - yeah I take it personal and am a bit pissed. My business involves me in the oil, gas, nuclear and power generation market place. And I am saying this as someone who profits because of the global climate champions. My business continues to boom because of all the regulations and the attack on energy - selling tubes that go into exchangers, boilers, scrubbers, nuclear power plants at every level of the food chain. Every time they are targeted, every time a new scientific report comes out they know now that they have to react even if the results have fallen very short of the warnings. When they react it costs millions and billions which then costs the consumers a lot of money. All the while those folks on the Left screaming about this continue to fly in jets (even owning a fleet), boats and all the toys contributing. Even Jon - the author of this article - does not subscribe to his own fears. He drives an old car spitting out carbon, he flies his family around the country to Disney and other places who run carbon emitting buses and other things burning the fuels he hates - you'd think he would be driving an electric/solar car or wold bemusing solar energy, but he is not. He wants the world to change, but not him.

Sorry - went on the soap box a minute. So here is the question - how do we do what your proposing? With a world today so polarizing how do we find the mean? Is it a panel of 6 and 6 to determine? Scrub/regulate the media propaganda? How does it get done?

Chad said...

One other point here that I rarely - almost never hear anyone talk about either. Let's just take a snap shot at the population in 1950 compared to 2000 and let's compare that population change to CO2 levels.

In 1950 - 2.5 Billion souls on earth - 310 ppm in CO2
In 2000 - 6 billion souls on earth - 370 ppm in CO2

Pop more than doubles and the PPM heads up 16.2%

So the CO2 went from .00031% up to .00037% with the addition of 3.5 billion people.

These statistics seem very logical to explan the CO2 increases all by themselves, but a .00006% uptick is not making the back of the hair on my neck to stand up.

Examinator said...

Sorry Jon
I wasn't going to be sucked into Chad's fact lite vortex but really,
His lack of facts, expertise, propensity for conspiratorial thinking and 3rd hand understanding are, as you say, faith based.
Most egregious he deems his hotchpotch of facts and wishful thinking something he has to proselytise.
I would make the point to those who really try to think issues through that I don't argue Left or right per se rather seek the truth.
In plain language I don't give a toss for either side as I had written several times the truth is neither the exclusive province of either party (side?). ACC (AGW if you must) is neither Universally Absolute nor is it Linear. There are simply far to many variables for either.

I would point out that Chad's alleged correlation between 2 billion people and 7billion and linking the 16% differential in PPM is scientifically speaking a false equivalence at best. One could point to the natural “sink” capacity of the earth and what is being measured to day is the overflow of the excess CO2 that has been filling for perhaps 1500 years. This was the time when man started the deforestation upsetting the world's natural sink capacity. The growth in long term pollution including EXCESS CO2 (Chad should be aware that while CO2 is natural) in excessive amounts it is an O excluder. See Computer room fire suppression /extinguishers) By the way humans would die if they were to breath pure O. We live in a tight band of air mixes up set those mixes and you get the Bends one end and Altitude sickness at the other.

There are countries today who are currently experiencing the effects of the slight but measurable sea rise.
I would also point out that orthodox interests fought The observation of scientists for nearly 25years regarding plate tectonics it was only accepted as the new orthodox in the 60's. Radial ply tyres were banned from the US by business (vehicle/ tyre) lobby in the late 50's- 60's because they stood to lose profit. Because they weren't set up for it. This was despite copious scientific data showing it was a better /safer technology. (so much for innovation et al).

I'd like Chad and others Accurately (i.e. give impeccable source material to prove that:
a. the “green” lobby can match the lobby juggernaut of business anti “green” lobby)
b. Show comparative lists of actual money and their sources that prove his wild conspiratorial claims.

As a matter of reality the “left” tends to be far less organised and singularly focused than the “right”.
Broadly speaking there are more versions of 'left' than there are 'right'. Simply put the left are by definition more tolerant of variations than the 'right' e.g. gay marriage to the right its an abominations etc. the left is “what ever floats your boat.” and so it goes through most “contentious” topics

Being cognitive that many on this site want simplistic Black/white left/ right commentary and my style is a squeeze on that I go back into my non comment mode.

Jon said...

Chad, regarding how long data has been collected, we have means of measuring temperature and air properties from centuries ago. When you pull up an ice core you literally are dealing with air that is exactly the way it was 100 or 1000 years ago. It is the ancient atmosphere. When you look at tree rings you can extrapolate many of the world's properties from ancient times. The start of the measurements is not the earliest point of our knowledge.

When you make these broad statements about how predictions missed by a mile and a half you aren't very specific. I think if you dig into that you'll find a different story. Don't just believe it because The Blaze says it. Go look for the actual prediction and show us how it's wrong. This will help you come to recognize the right wing lies.

As far as my personal life, I think some of your criticism is fair. Not my old car. That's a bad argument. My old car gets 20 mpg, which isn't bad for a minivan. But it would be much worse if I got rid of it and bought a new Prius. It takes a lot of energy to create a car. If I can continue using mine, instead of discarding it because the A/C doesn't work, as a lot of people might, I'm responsible for less CO2 emissions. Using it up until it's truly worn out is better in terms of global warming.

Jon said...

I do a lot of things, but you're right on the flights. I was torn about doing that as I think I've mentioned before. If there was a regulation that said nobody can fly except for truly necessary activities (basically stuff other than vacation) I'd be fine with it. But for me to just simply not take advantage of it while the rest of the country does, well it's kind of the distinction between a feel good action and an action that actually does good. Should I deprive myself while everyone else flies and my individual abstention doesn't really change anything? I mean, maybe we just need to get hot. Nothing's going to change until people actually see the droughts and floods. So I'm going to fight to change minds so we can implement the changes we need. I support broad restrictions that affect me. But am I obligated to be the only one that deprives himself?

Maybe I should. I'm truly torn about it. We have not taken a flown vacation this year, and this is part of the reason. I was going to go somewhere because I just had my 15 year anniversary. Just like a weekend getaway. But it didn't happen. I'm not going to say AGW is the main reason we didn't go, but it's in the back of my mind sapping my motivation to get a trip together.

This idea that .00006% uptick is such a small number that we don't have to worry about it, I can tell you this. You didn't get that from a scientist. No scientist would say that. It's totally the way a propagandist would write, and a poorly trained one at that. The number looks small so it doesn't matter? That's like saying if I cut out a tiny piece of your jugular it wouldn't matter because it only represents a tiny portion of the mass of your body. Yeah, but it's important. And it leads to other consequences.

Chad said...

Jon - I do read about climate change, I have studied it sir. Not as if I am writing a paper or given a speech, but I check in on publications and information from a variety of places. And when a group of people (scientist) are wrong 114 out of 117 times you got to say that aint so good no matter what side your on.

Scientist made 117 predictions of which 114 fell significantly short of said predictions sir.

You have been sold a bad bill of good sir - your unwilling to turn a critical eye on the science - your unwilling to admit - to any degree that they have overplayed their hand which means we have taken this conversation out as far as it can go I am afraid.

The scary portion of your comment even though it is expected is your acceptance in the data so much so that your willing to throw the world into a tailspin. Your okay with a world wide ban on plane travel minus the various things that you/Progressives deem okay then it will be a ban on cars or TV's because your right the amount of energy to make a TV is pretty significant then it will be on the next worse thing - harpooning the entire global economy. Even if the Science are proved right with 100% certainty the negative effect on the world as we know it would be so profound and deadly that why would it matter anyhow? You start eliminating plane flights, cars, consumer products that use carbon emitted energy and the world practically will shut down and chaos would rain down on all of us.

I am unsure what you mean when you say that we should be worried about a .00006% uptick. Putting that in sports terms that is like missing one completed passes out of more than 10,000 attempts. JC - that is a small number sir for a world where the population more than doubled?

Appreciate the honesty about not practicing fully what you preach.

Chad said...

My true feeling on this would be if the scientists are 100% accurate and real change would need to be made - because of the technology, the carbon burning plants and the ability to make stuff - some smart person or persons would figure out a way to reverse it. Right now smart people make things to make money - turn that brilliance toward saving the world and I suspect they would get a lot done.

BTW - one more point. Reading a lot about how the elevated levels of CO2 have been helping other areas of the natural world. Trees needing less water - growing taller and stronger much faster. Others have suggested that the increased levels have also put momma earth in a much more stable environment which retards the massive carbon polluter which is volcanoes.

Finally - who determines what mother earths true baseline is? I mean does anyone actually know what is norm for her? Maybe the CO2 levels are supposed to be 1,000 PPM - maybe 2,000? How do we know and the answer is that they don't know - no one human does anyhow.

Little nugget to think about there. Maybe she likes what we are doing down here?

Jon said...

Check this one out, Chad.

You said there was 114 of 117 predictions that were wrong, but I think the paper is only about the so called warming pause. What of the other 113?

BTW, scientists have long told us that the uptick in CO2 will cause temporary benefits, like increased total food production, because of the easy access to CO2 for plants. But then this is followed by catastrophic consequences subsequently.

Chad said...

Interesting - a non climate expert found something that no expert has?

Finding any media outlet willing to publish something off the narrative is difficult.

Chad said...

Couple other questions/comments. What business person who's predictions are more than 200% off the mark would ever be taken seriously again?

The IPCC group - are comprised of only a fraction of the qualified scientist capable of adding to this debate. A very selective group driving this argument.

Chad said...

Now here is an article that makes a whole bunch of sense to me - what this movement was really all about.

Looks at her statements - even if we are wrong we are right? Meanwhile look at the lost money and costs - just enormous amounts of money - poof.

Jon said...

Chad, if my prior link is right then your first link is simply based on old information. With the necessary correctives things are making more sense. Your second comment is the same.

I do agree with the person discussed in that final link. Yeah, if we're wrong we're stuck with a bunch of renewable energy, probably a jobs program, efficient cars, lower costs. Whoops, I guess it wasn't really a threat, but your electricity is practically free. Not such a bad deal.

If you're wrong though and we pursue your recommendations (basically do nothing and keep burning up the energy) we're screwed. Even with doubt, and you always have some doubt for scientific conclusions, pursuing my policy preferences is wiser.

Chad said...

As a point of correction sir - I am not advocating the endless and ignorant burning of carbon emitting fuels - no sir. In fact I don't believe you have even asked me what my beliefs which do lean toward clean, renewable energies. I would absolutely love to see solar panels built on every roof - solar shingles and zero carbon cars - I still have to breath the air and drink the water. I absolutely dispise it being forced through bad scientific evidence and to watch billions, maybe trillions being wasted with very little ROI.

I would actually support a privately ran - Gov't supported research facility for renewable alternative sources of power - it is in our nations best interest to be the leader in that development. We should poor a lot of development into figuring out how to make 1 solar panel the size of a basketball to power a whole house.

Chad said...

I love our RV, the Pontoon and other toys we have - I would love them a hell of a lot more if they ran on natural gas or better yet a zero friction axle on batteries that recharge naturally through panels or whatever collection method.

Examinator said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon said...

What actions do you support that would actually reduce carbon emissions? That's good that you support government funding of industry that creates renewable energy, but I think that already exists. Things like Solyndra are what the right usually talks about to pretend this is a failed strategy, while at the same time usually the right ignores the many successes (Boeing, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, GM, Chrysler, etc). Since it already exists and has for years it's obviously not enough to actually reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned.

So as far as I can see you're still at a basically "do nothing" level. You support doing what we're already doing. Continue the research funding and otherwise let the free market figure it out. I guess that's my assumption, but tell me if you think differently.

Chad said...

Pretty good question - my initial reaction is that I am not in the "Do Nothing" camp, I am more in line with the "Force Nothing and Find Answers" camp.

There is no doubt there was some bad investments made and I think the frustrating part was the lack of due diligence done and the tangible dollar bills wasted. Some good things came, but the ROI was very very underwhelming.

Our founders could never have predicted or even dreamed of any of this, but they were smart enough to know that. Even though the language is a bit grey - there is an enumerated power that was given to the government that I believe (after reading the Federalist Papers and other writings) covers this or at least touches this as an important role of the gov't.

- To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

To promote the Progress of Science. Very broad, but again none of the founders could envision this world today even still they understood the importance of gov'ts role in looking into the unknown - to support new creations and to be on the cutting edge. It is our governments duty and charter to make sure we are not killing the planet.

What I envision is a hybrid of Private and Public work on alternative energies and fuels. Heavy and deep tax deductions to all current energy providers doing research in the Private world - heavy. Then to have a gov't facility hiring the best of the best - have accountability for spending - accountability for discoveries and then to sell any new technologies back to the private sector to repay any debts/costs associated to the taxpayer. This goes for medical science as well - we should have the best of the best working to solve cancer along side the private sector researchers.

Who doesn't think this is important? Give the most brilliant group of people this USA has to offer unlimited resources that the gov't has at their disposal and figure it out.

Immediate Actions? I don't have the first damn clue to be perfectly honest. I suppose it does depend on what camp you lay your head - if your convinced of certain death then you probably want to do what you said, ground planes, trains and auto's tomorrow and hold on tight for the global economic meltdown. If your in the opposite camp then your right the thought would be to do nothing about energy consumption - stop wasting/taxing those who give us the energy and let the free market find the solution once resources deplete or the earth catches fire.

However - if we followed the enumerated power already on the book - believing that its meaning is for gov't to use tax dollars to invest in science and then to secure the most brilliant minds in the world to do so we may get the answer without trying.

Finally something that we both can agree on which is supported by the Constitution. Even the most Libertarian person would not be able to argue against a gov't program to find a long term renewable energy source or to find medical solutions assuming we can all agree that the enumerated power language gives gov't that power which I believe it does.

Jon said...

That's cool, Chad, we obviously do have some overlap on this. I think your ideas are definitely a step in the right direction, but also IMO not radical enough to really stem the tide.

In fairness I don't want to ground planes, trains, and autos tomorrow, though I assume you say that tongue in cheek. I do think we need radical change. Something on the order of the US effort in WWII. That was a centrally planned economy. Private people functioning at the behest of the government. Rationing, propaganda encouraging people not to waste. The problem is big enough that it's going to require a big solution like this.

Cars, planes, and whatever are still there, but their operation needs to be geared towards meeting people's needs, not simply wants. Or profits.

Turns out of course this was a very profitable condition for our population during WWII. It was prosperity. People had their needs met. It doesn't have to be an enormous burden. But yes, it would mean sacrifice. Food needs to be grown locally instead of shipped all over the world. That's a huge part of it. Electricity obviously needs to be renewable. And in fact we need to start sucking carbon out of the air, which I think is doable. There are certain plants that just suck it up, and they solidfy in a way that allows them to retain the carbon. Normally when trees or grass die they release the carbon they had previously absorbed.

This can be managed in my opinion, but not with an Ayn Rand mentality, and it's good to see you're not fully in that camp.

dmarks said...

"... Propaganda works..."

Information works. The term "propaganda" here, and elsewhere, is a meaningless pejorative used to denigrate facts and opinions someone does not like.

Chad: Thanks for presenting facts. They blow a way the whole idea of science based on "consensus" instead of facts.