221–230 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Uninhabitable Earth By David Wallace-Wells is my source for this. He’s got scientific references for what I wrote.
Oh. That explains it. Apparently his writing has been publicly criticized by such well-known climate change deniers as Michael Mann for being doom-mongering that misrepresents the science.
Outside climatologists, geophysicists, biologists and other people with scientific training, I am not sure most people are really equipped to argue against evidence of human impact on the climate, or that human activity is a non-factor in change. However, I do think that the policies countries and even municipalities institute in response to the evidence are fair game. Wild lands conservation, green belts on cities,…
The people who have a "class war agenda" are precisely the people trying to reduce the spread of poverty. You may disagree with their methods, but claiming their agenda is "designed to spread poverty" is both false and disingenuous.
Otherwise your points were quite good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of all life, humans are probably the most adaptable.
Why do people keep saying this? We're around only for a couple million years if you count australopithecus. And during that time there were possibly several periods with less than 100k individuals. Going from 7B to 100k would be pretty close to extinction. 0.00143% The question is can we keep industrial scale food production going? Can we get people enough clean water?
Name another species that can create its own energy, create new materials and cure diseases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but there is debate and there is to cast FUD and lies using extreme or disingenuous cherry picking then claim it's a debate. Were someone to perform a study or experiment, any experiment, that cast genuine doubt on the consensus we could have a debate. Few would be naive enough to claim science is perfect or infallible. Models are imperfect, climate is a massive, complex thing with colossal hysteresis. So, Mr X…
Not remotely what is happening, is it? Actually, I disagree. There's a lot of that happening. You just aren't exposed to it. You say you'd be genuinely fascinated by a debate about how scientists could be mistaken. OK, let's find out if you mean it. The last debate we had here on this got derailed into a discussion of Conservative party policy. Let's keep it on science this time. To start, let me say that I'm not a c…
First, are you claiming that weather scientists and forecasters are part of a vast global conspiracy? Seriously? These guys aren't even climate scientists, they are just building more accurate sensor networks and forecasting models. And if you look at the forecasting models running on todays supercomputers they are devastatingly accurate compared to 2 decades ago. So one can guess they are getting it more right, than wrong.
It think to biggest issue here is "normal" people don't understand math or stats.
I work with weather data sets in building simulation, which involves sensors and sensor fusion. First, there is no sensor that doesn't involve algorithms, statistics, or some sort of "data cleaning". Unless you are talking about a glass thermometer visually inspected... and if thats the only "data" you'll accept then we are talking serious luddite tendencies here.
All weather data needs cleaning. There are data drops than need interpolation, sensor stats checks to detect erroneous readings, multi-sensor fusion to make more accurate values. Get real.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not a business as usual scenario: https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger... > The Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 scenario (RCP8.5), a very high emissions scenario examined by climate scientists, has the Earth’s atmosphere reaching around 1,100ppm by the year 2100. But this would require the world to massively expand coal use and eschew any climate mitigation over the rest of th…
When global temperatures were that high, the change happened gradually over many millions of years, allowing ecosystems to adapt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, the "environment movement" as you call it is obviously funded by the governments looking for an excuse to raise taxes. It's the governments giving away grant money to fund the "scientific consensus" (another ridiculous term). Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with "saving the world", only with the sovereign debt crisis. United States, EU and Japan are dead broke, they will try every ploy to raise taxes and steal…
>governments looking for an excuse to raise taxes. In Germany energy taxes + VAT make up more than 50% of the price of gasoline and this has been the case for decades. If we switch to 100% electric cars then the government will lose 10% of its tax income. This is a strong motivation to avoid transportation policies that are good for the environment.
The government can tax whatever it wants, there is no reason why electric cars couldn’t generate the same tax receipts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The Supreme Court has two very memorable recent decisions that cause us to question the viability of our (2 party) democracy. 1) Bush v. Gore 2000: only time the court ever issued a decision, knowing that it was totally vaporous, and said this should not be used as future precedent. The entire point of the court is to set precedent. 2) Citizens United: continuing the notion that companies deserve as much protect…
You understand that a contrary ruling on Citizens United would also allow the government to shut down numerous organizations advocating for addressing climate change? If the government can ban a political movie about Hilary Clinton (which is what was at issue in Citizens United), it can ban a political movie about Trump’s effect on climate change.
Ultamist positions (NRA, ACLU, BBV) are useful thought experiments, defining the boundaries. To better understand the problem domain. And utterly impractical.
Any idea taken to its logical extreme becomes its own opposite, highlighting the absurdity.
Freedom Speeches™, like Freedom Markets™, reject compromise, deny the existence of other concerns, eschew balance. They're terrible policies for actual governance. Toxic.
As we now see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but there is debate and there is to cast FUD and lies using extreme or disingenuous cherry picking then claim it's a debate. Were someone to perform a study or experiment, any experiment, that cast genuine doubt on the consensus we could have a debate. Few would be naive enough to claim science is perfect or infallible. Models are imperfect, climate is a massive, complex thing with colossal hysteresis. So, Mr X…
Not remotely what is happening, is it? Actually, I disagree. There's a lot of that happening. You just aren't exposed to it. You say you'd be genuinely fascinated by a debate about how scientists could be mistaken. OK, let's find out if you mean it. The last debate we had here on this got derailed into a discussion of Conservative party policy. Let's keep it on science this time. To start, let me say that I'm not a c…
Second, if temperature declines across the continental US, as a fast skim of the first link claims to show, that in no way disproves an increase in global temperature. For decades the prediction has always been some areas will get warmer, some might get colder, just as some will dry and others get wetter. Europe has bloody obviously been warming, unmissably so, across the last 40 years. So neither are necessarily in contradiction with global heating.
It might be reasonable for NOAA to bring formal rigour to their software, but MilSpec or Nuclear safety level programming costs. If they're in from the start Unit Tests need not, if they're added after they cost too. That would have budgetary implications. I have no idea how viable funding for a project to improve the software would be - though throughout the software industry rewrites have an ignominious track record. And via a funding source you inexplicably appear to trust least of all. Personally I am much, much more leery of industry research and funding. But that's our previous discussion. :p
Still, having found what you believe are questionable adjustments, you can't just dump the lot and say "dada, see nothing to see, the raw graph shows the opposite!" because we haven't established that all the applied adjustments are incorrect, or actually any of them, yet. You yourself gave a couple of valid reasons why adjustment may be necessary for accuracy, there are many others. For unmanned remote stations, calibration curves may need to change or be refitted as sensors age.
You do neatly identify the point down these rabbit holes where I see bad faith, or intent to mislead - or very poor practice if I wish to be charitable. It's the throwing out of absolutely everything to prove a point and curve on a graph - despite acknowledging there could be multiple good reasons to adjust, or showing that any are mistaken. It's a very simple - to the layman - presentation of "adjusted == fraud", here's the raw, see I can show black is clearly white. It sounds superficially convincing until you dig, even a little.
To close, and expand:
+ You can't just scream "FAKE DATA" and remove the lot, or MCAS would have resulted in all Boeings having no wings (shite analogy, but hey)
+ You audit the data going back
+ you establish which adjustments are questionable and why, and make a credible case as to what the problem is, and the case for discarding.
+ you accept others - for, as you mention, a station that had to move etc. Or is the premise that no adjustment is ever permissible?
+ you present a graph with the suspicious entries only, along with the processed entries with the suspicious removed, you also show the combined curve of all adjusted entries - suspicious and not. Now you can get a feel for extent of error.
+ what you very probably should never do unless your intent is to mislead, is simply present 100% raw data on a graph, as we've already established there are very valid reasons to need to adjust some data.
Were they playing it that way I might have much more time for some of these blogs. Mainly I find they are doing, at some point, the sleight of hand of proving 1=0 we used to amuse ourselves with in maths class.
That really is all I have time for this evening. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The official position of organizations like Heritage Foundation is not to deny that climate change is happening. This is a flat-out false representation. The Heritage Foundation has sown the seeds of denialism many times. https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif... https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/congress-should-... (section titled "climate change realities") https://www.desmogblog.c…
...and if it does happen, they say [1], worst case estimate is 7 F increase in the global average temperature. Dubai is about 35 F above the global average, and they do fine by using their abundant fossil fuels to power air conditioners. A globalized market in cheap fossil fuels will let other countries do that so 7 F is nothing to worry about. [1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-fossil-f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are they wrong?
At least in part because that’s not what the IPCC is projecting. It’s telling that nobody ever references the work of the IPCC on expected economic impacts of climate change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap... > For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement). Changes in population, age, incom…