Science/Environment 'Gaia' scientist : I was 'alarmist' about climate change

[Pie eyed]

No it's not. Name another area of scientific inquiry that's put under the same level of scrutiny by people outside of the field.

Physics, cosmology, medicine, geology, paleontology, biology(genetics, human reproduction)to name a few.

Not sure why you're ignoring the next sentence in that post. Join them together and it's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

I don't even understand this statement?

Yes that's kind of my point. Even though the vast majority of us lack the knowledge required to properly understand the science there are still countless people out there who absolutely refuse to believe it no matter how the science is presented. Why do you think there's such vehement opposition to something that most people can't understand?

And the costs of inaction? Do we simply remove those from consideration because the simple among us think knowledge is binary?

If you compare the massive economic and social cost of taking the recommended action and compare this with what effect this action will have on the alleged predicted outcomes of Global Warming you have prima facie evidence to support being high critical and skeptical of the current recommended actions.

You make the assumption, off your own back that everyone who is critical of the current GW science is simple.
This does not make it so.

 

[Pie eyed]

The war on drugs is a perfect example of why it is no sin to be skeptical.
How has that gone?

A perceived problem, a widely accepted (at governement level) remedy, which for all intents and purposes has now lost sight of the original purpose and which is now so mired in politics and personal belief that the whole concept is anathema to the original...perceived...problem.

Climate Change and specifically Runaway Global Warming is simply the next in a long line og looming Global Catastrophe eagerly latched onto by Government and Business alike...once they can see a profit in it.

I certainly maintain my right to be as skeptical or not as I like.
More so now that the issue is fast becoming one of faith based labeling and lambasting of the unconvinced.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Hitler and the Nazis were socialist?

Meds has lost it.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

The Nazis were left wing? Oh, that old chestnut.

Hitler and the Nazis were socialist?

Meds has lost it.

You can't lose what you never had.

 

[telsor]

Hitler and the Nazis were socialist?

Meds has lost it.

Well, they were the 'National Socialist' party, and did have some economic and social policies that would have fit into a socialist platform (although more in a modern socialist 'working with business' way than the standard style of socialism of the time).

Their foreign and ethnic policies were a very different matter however.

 

[telsor]

I'm not sure why some of the "Climate change activists" cannot just admit that a lot of the hysteria regarding global warming that was stirred up in the 90's was based on fairly rubbery data. While the idea of climate change is a valid one, the rate at which it is happening and the level of responsibility we as humans need to accept for exacerbating the situation is such a complex calculation that is largely based on supposition and conjecture.

This.

A lot of my scepticism comes from how the 'science' is based largely around models that, thus far, have failed badly to have any validity in their predictions.

Now, I can accept that they're supposed to pick up trends rather than being being exact predictions, and there will always be a few anomolous years, but as time goes on, they're just getting further and further off.

That said, it's undeniable that fuels like coal, gas and oil are finite, and as such, it's prudent to start research and development of replacements earlier rather than later, and reducing polution is always a good thing, so spending *some* money on these things is to be welcomed.

 

[Monniehawk]

Unverified? Its from an interview and has been quoted extensively in the media not just the odd weird blog that noone reads. You think MSNBC is isolated and dodgy?
What reason do you have to believe the interview didnt take place? Are you trying to argue this is a hoax?

No. A logical fallacy.
I'm trying very, verrrrrrry hard to let you know that one report of one (questionable) occurrence does not constitute the whole. A classic non sequitur! "If this professor has admitted he was wrong, then all the others are wrong."
You can't use it as the unequivocal proof that all other instances to the contrary are therefore untrue and expect to remain credible!

The majority of "sceptics" don't actually care about the science. Their issue is the political and economic implications of the science.

Confirmation bias.
i.e. Dan26 below!!

The petiton project is 30,000 scientists (including 9,000 PHD's) who are sceptical. http://www.petitionproject.org/

....the link is a BLOG!!!
The Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine.
(EDIT)
The "Institute" runs your beloved Petition site and the "Institute is a derelict shed in Oregon run by SIX people who undertake some rather bizarre "science" projects. So did Joseph Mengele!
They have NOT produced ANY feasible reults from their "research".
They are nutters!
Check the links on their home page! Some creepy things they are involved in - and it ain't just science, brudder!!

The OISM is not supported by ANY credible education authority, government or science body.
Nor is it subject to peer review!
It is an unequivocal sham.
Anyone can enter their name and their supposed quals without any need for verification.
Try it!!

Their working is unequivocal:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Unless, of course, you consult the vast majority of the world's scientists who say that CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas.....
And test your hypothesis: seal off your bedroom so that you can get the maximum beneficial effects of CO2 during a night's sleep.

It might well solve one of the world's more irritating problems...

We all used to be alarmists. I did! I changed my opinion as the evidence changed.

You keep trying that one on!
I contend that you were NEVER, EVER from the left, or even an "alarmist". Every fibre in my substantial body is screaming that it is a complete fabrication.
It is a shallow attempt to invoke the credibility so lacking in your arguments and reasoning.

 

[cat on acid]

The argument is not a scientific one, most scientists would agree, I work in the petroleum industry, have contact with many scientists young and old from big and small companies and have not met a great number of 'deniers', even though its not in our interest to agree.

Climate science is relatively new and based on complex models, and interpreting results should be left to climate scientists, however the evidence speaks for itself. It's annoying people still talk up the 'conspiracy'. Being skeptical is a good thing, but with the weight of the evidence it's plain denial.

 

[medusala]

A classic non sequitur! "If this professor has admitted he was wrong, then all the others are wrong."

Noone made that claim.

Throwing in a bit of latin does nothing to alter that.

The argument is not a scientific one, most scientists would agree, I work in the petroleum industry, have contact with many scientists young and old from big and small companies and have not met a great number of 'deniers', even though its not in our interest to agree.

I know a lot of Australians in London who work in mining, not just oil and gas but also in things like CBM, palm oil, uranium etc which gain from the AGW debate. Not one of them believes in the hysteria and they are very well versed in the debate due to lobbying, carbon credits etc.

As for what is more likely: the answer is obvious. The environmental movement has been responsible for numerous scare campaigns

Nuclear holocaust
Acid Rain
Chernobyl killing vast numbers
GM crops
Brent Spar

etc etc etc

 

[Docker Clint]

The argument is not a scientific one, most scientists would agree, I work in the petroleum industry, have contact with many scientists young and old from big and small companies and have not met a great number of 'deniers', even though its not in our interest to agree.

Climate science is relatively new and based on complex models, and interpreting results should be left to climate scientists, however the evidence speaks for itself. It's annoying people still talk up the 'conspiracy'. Being skeptical is a good thing, but with the weight of the evidence it's plain denial.

Well.. clearly it's the first one isn't it? Those greedy scientists, trying to score grants on the sly.

 

[QuietB]

Yeah, it's all about the economic "now" for them.

And they are so convinced they are right that they are happy to risk the state of the planet for future generations. Including their own children and descendants.

Personally, I don't pretend to know what is the truth. I'm actually astonished there are so many keyboard experts on such a complex topic.

But I don't see why we shouldn't err on the side of caution in the event that the scientists are right. Apart from selfish economic reasons of course.

This is exactly right. The entire debate has been completely derailed to make it basically certain that nothing will happen. What possible good comes from pumping endless pollutants into the atmosphere? We have to breath that sh1t.

 

[MeeSo]

Physics, cosmology, medicine, geology, paleontology, biology(genetics, human reproduction)to name a few.

We appear to be living in different realities. None of these even approach the level of scrutiny received by climate science. Where are the think tanks setup to spread doubt about geology? Where are the hundreds of blogs questioning physics? Who is the Monckton of medicine? Why is no one hacking into biologists emails and disseminating them across the net?

I don't even understand this statement?

Not sure what's so difficult to understand. The issue for most deniers is the economic implications of climate change. If there were no economic implications climate scientists would be going about their business in relative obscurity like all other scientists. The majority of deniers simply can't separate the economic implications of the science from the science itself.

If you compare the massive economic and social cost of taking the recommended action and compare this with what effect this action will have on the alleged predicted outcomes of Global Warming you have prima facie evidence to support being high critical and skeptical of the current recommended actions.

What would be the effect of economic action on global warming?

You make the assumption, off your own back that everyone who is critical of the current GW science is simple. This does not make it so.

No that wasn't what I was saying. I meant that those who hide behind uncertainty and think we either know everything or we know nothing are simple. Either that or have an ideological blind spot.

 

[telsor]

We appear to be living in different realities. None of these even approach the level of scrutiny received by climate science. Where are the think tanks setup to spread doubt about geology? Where are the hundreds of blogs questioning physics? Who is the Monckton of medicine? Why is no one hacking into biologists emails and disseminating them across the net?

While I agree with you that other sciences don't have the same scrutiny, I would also observe that they're not trying to make massive, systemic changes to our lifestyles and economy.

If they were, I'm sure they would be examined similarly.

They also tend to publish their methodology a lot better than "I've got this model, which I wont reveal, and it predicts disaster, therefore everyone must act!".

 

[MeeSo]

I can't be bothered responding point by point to a few of these other posts so here's a few points for anyone interested to consider.

- Human contribution to greenhouse gases is well understood and not overly difficult to measure.
- The impact of a doubling of CO2, excluding positive and negative feedbacks, is also fairly straightforward to calculate.
- The impact of a doubling of CO2 if you include positive and negative feedbacks is much more difficult to calculate for a variety of reasons. This uncertainty is TWO-DIRECTIONAL.
- Adding massive amounts of energy to a chaotic system has consequences. Energy does not simply disappear.
- Despite assertions to the contrary projections for a doubling of CO2 haven't changed significantly since Manabe and Wetherald made their initial projections 45 years ago.
- There are no competing hypotheses that fit the data. Lindzen was the last I'm aware of to offer anything interesting but it didn't bear out.
- The slower rate of warming over the last 15 odd years does not invalidate projections. Especially when you account for natural variability. No one expects a linear temp increase.
- Temp increases are not the only measure of climate change.
- The media and how they report the science generally has little to do with the science itself. Worst case scenario idiocy is not representative of climate science.
- 'Gaia' scientists, environmentalists, lobby groups, think tanks and ideologues on both sides should be ignored.
- Questioning the science without a reasonable basis is not scepticism.

 

[Old Skool]

I can't be bothered responding point by point to a few of these other posts so here's a few points for anyone interested to consider.

- Human contribution to greenhouse gases is well understood and not overly difficult to measure.
- The impact of a doubling of CO2, excluding positive and negative feedbacks, is also fairly straightforward to calculate.
- The impact of a doubling of CO2 if you include positive and negative feedbacks is much more difficult to calculate for a variety of reasons. This uncertainty is TWO-DIRECTIONAL.
- Adding massive amounts of energy to a chaotic system has consequences. Energy does not simply disappear.
- Despite assertions to the contrary projections for a doubling of CO2 haven't changed significantly since Manabe and Wetherald made their initial projections 45 years ago.
- There are no competing hypotheses that fit the data. Lindzen was the last I'm aware of to offer anything interesting but it didn't bear out.
- The slower rate of warming over the last 15 odd years does not invalidate projections. Especially when you account for natural variability. No one expects a linear temp increase.
- Temp increases are not the only measure of climate change.
- The media and how they report the science generally has little to do with the science itself. Worst case scenario idiocy is not representative of climate science.
- 'Gaia' scientists, environmentalists, lobby groups, think tanks and ideologues on both sides should be ignored.
- Questioning the science without a reasonable basis is not scepticism.

Good post.

 

[medusala]

- The impact of a doubling of CO2 if you include positive and negative feedbacks is much more difficult to calculate for a variety of reasons. This uncertainty is TWO-DIRECTIONAL.

So why is the downside risk never talked about or included in models when forecasting is done?

IIRC the probability distribution of the IPCC is massively skewed to the right. The below talks about it.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/t...odel-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

 

[MeeSo]

While I agree with you that other sciences don't have the same scrutiny, I would also observe that they're not trying to make massive, systemic changes to our lifestyles and economy.

If they were, I'm sure they would be examined similarly.

But they're not trying to make changes (except Hansen of course). They're just scientists. They have no control over the economic implications of their work and they have no say over how politicians and policy makers respond to it.

They also tend to publish their methodology a lot better than "I've got this model, which I wont reveal, and it predicts disaster, therefore everyone must act!".

This is ignorance not scepticism. Their models, data and methodology are readily available to anyone who bothers to look.

 

[MeeSo]

So why is the downside risk never talked about or included in models when forecasting is done?

IIRC the probability distribution of the IPCC is massively skewed to the right. The below talks about it.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/t...odel-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

It's talked about regularly and there's been a huge amount of work published on climate sensitivity since AR4. Just because you can't be arsed looking doesn't mean the work doesn't exist.

 

[medusala]

It's talked about regularly and there's been a huge amount of work published on climate sensitivity since AR4. Just because you can't be arsed looking doesn't mean the work doesn't exist.

Not about sensivity, about the probability distribution.

 

[MeeSo]

Not about sensivity, about the probability distribution.

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/probrevised.pdf

 

[Richo83]

Something of convenience. See Bonhoeffer and the real church.

Yeah, because establishing ties with the Vatican, the most noteworthy church and most noteworthy conservative church isn't conservative?

That is to bastardise the meaning of the word in a political context. By that you would you have to say the KGB who tried to overthrow Gorby were in fact right wing conservatives and by the same token Thatcher was not.

I would say the reason why the KGB were not conservatives is because they were aligned to a person, not an image of society which Hitler was.

Your definition of conservatism, which is essentially Burkean toryism is so specific it renders out pretty much any conservative not found within the British tradition. There existed conservatives before we had the modern state, property rights and the king med. Bin Laden was not a Burkean. But he was still an extreme fundamentalist conservative. Hitler clearly looked back, and when he established his republic, he did everything in his power to preserve and conserve what he established.

Primacy of the state over the individual is hardly Burkean. Hitler did quote Marx as I mentioned above. He didnt want a return to feudal times. See all his quotes to the contrary.

I don't see any quotes of Marx here. And the primary of the state is certainly in the wheelhouse of conservatism if an expanded state is used to conserve principles of political society deemed worthy of conserving. Burke isn't the be all and end all of conservatism.

"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order."

Lets see the quote in full shall we?

"I have learnt a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit," Hitler went on. "I don't mean their tiresome social doctrine or the materialist conception of history, or their absurd 'marginal utility' theories and so on. But I have learnt from their methods. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the workers' sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written specially for the comprehension of masses; all these new methods of political struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All that I had to do was take over these methods and adapt them to our purpose. I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realise its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order. ... there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will."

So here we see Hitler disparage Marxism's direct democracy, materialist conception of history, marginal utility, not to mention show no interest in the removal of prices, a global worker's revolution etc.

His connection with "Marxism" was a connection with Stalinist/Lenninist methods of political games. Get everyone into groups, form mass propaganda rallies etc. This is the process of Stalin, but it's not the ideology of socialism. He had no intent in implementing Marx's image of the global social worker's utopia.

Disagree. He hated the Junckers. He didnt want a return to Prussia. It was an imagined vision. He wanted a powerful expanded Germany but not the one of Frederick the Great.

The junckers were a social class. Hitler was not interested in playing class politics, but skewering social groups and attacking social institutions.

On one second you say conservative is keeping the status quo and now you are saying someone who radically wanted to changes things was conservative.

There is of course a tension between the conservatives of Burke who push for moderation in change and the radical traditionalists who call for society to move back to it's roots. Obviously, Hitler was the latter and not a British type conservative. He's still a raging reactionary traditionalist though med. Sarah Palin and the fundamentalist right want to change a lot of US America. Doesn't mean they're not conservatives, it just means that to maintain what they had, they must change what they have now. Admittedly, it's a tension between the political conservatives like Burke, and the moral conservatives. But when the American right push for a removal of Roe v Wade, they're being conservative.

Odd that dictators seem to be flexible in that regard.

Interesting, isn't it?

That isnt the argument. To suggest the Nazis werent a socialist party, however, is ridiculous. They clearly were.

And yet they adhered to none of the ideology of socialism. I mean do Fascists even agree in the basic concept of equality at all?

 

[Balony_pony16]

I can't be bothered responding point by point to a few of these other posts so here's a few points for anyone interested to consider.

- Human contribution to greenhouse gases is well understood and not overly difficult to measure.
- The impact of a doubling of CO2, excluding positive and negative feedbacks, is also fairly straightforward to calculate.
- The impact of a doubling of CO2 if you include positive and negative feedbacks is much more difficult to calculate for a variety of reasons. This uncertainty is TWO-DIRECTIONAL.
- Adding massive amounts of energy to a chaotic system has consequences. Energy does not simply disappear.
- Despite assertions to the contrary projections for a doubling of CO2 haven't changed significantly since Manabe and Wetherald made their initial projections 45 years ago.
- There are no competing hypotheses that fit the data. Lindzen was the last I'm aware of to offer anything interesting but it didn't bear out.
- The slower rate of warming over the last 15 odd years does not invalidate projections. Especially when you account for natural variability. No one expects a linear temp increase.
- Temp increases are not the only measure of climate change.
- The media and how they report the science generally has little to do with the science itself. Worst case scenario idiocy is not representative of climate science.
- 'Gaia' scientists, environmentalists, lobby groups, think tanks and ideologues on both sides should be ignored.
- Questioning the science without a reasonable basis is not scepticism.

Interesting, you seem to know a bit about Climate change etc...What is your back ground?

And a question. Most if not all politicians and Global Warming "Alarmists" talk about the need for Humans to cut down cO2....but even if man made co2 was a major cause of global warming, how much influence would today's policies really have?

My understanding is: (correct me if im wrong)
1) that CO2 makes up approx .04% of the Atmosphere.
2) The current policy is to reduce CO2 emissions by 60%, by 2050
3) Australia make approx 1.3% of total world cO2 emissions.

so...

under the current "Carbon Tax", we as a country aim to Cut world cO2 emission by .78%?

And of the .04% cO2 in the atmosphere, what % of this comes from man made?

The whole Carbon Tax seems like a great money spinner for the government when it will really achieve stuff all in terms of world carbon emission reduction.

Am I thinking right here?

 

[Monniehawk]

And a question. Most if not all politicians and Global Warming "Alarmists" talk about the need for Humans to cut down cO2....but even if man made co2 was a major cause of global warming, how much influence would today's policies really have?

My understanding is: (correct me if im wrong)
1) that CO2 makes up approx .04% of the Atmosphere.
2) The current policy is to reduce CO2 emissions by 60%, by 2050
3) Australia make approx 1.3% of total world cO2 emissions.

so...

under the current "Carbon Tax", we as a country aim to Cut world cO2 emission by .78%?

And of the .04% cO2 in the atmosphere, what % of this comes from man made?

The whole Carbon Tax seems like a great money spinner for the government when it will really achieve stuff all in terms of world carbon emission reduction.

Am I thinking right here?

No.

 

[Malifice]

Does anyone else think its weird that every conservative poster supports 'alarmist' arguments, while the opposite is true for the lefties.

Shit we have 750 million cars alone in the world today pumping out a proven greenhouse gas (i.e. a gas proven to heat up the earth).

But its not happening.

 

[hamohawk1]

Interesting, you seem to know a bit about Climate change etc...What is your back ground?

And a question. Most if not all politicians and Global Warming "Alarmists" talk about the need for Humans to cut down cO2....but even if man made co2 was a major cause of global warming, how much influence would today's policies really have?

My understanding is: (correct me if im wrong)
1) that CO2 makes up approx .04% of the Atmosphere.
2) The current policy is to reduce CO2 emissions by 60%, by 2050
3) Australia make approx 1.3% of total world cO2 emissions.

so...

under the current "Carbon Tax", we as a country aim to Cut world cO2 emission by .78%?

And of the .04% cO2 in the atmosphere, what % of this comes from man made?

The whole Carbon Tax seems like a great money spinner for the government when it will really achieve stuff all in terms of world carbon emission reduction.

Am I thinking right here?

the .04 percent of carbon currently allows us to live, otherwise we would be too cold. but if we keep pumping co2 through processes the .04 may rise with any rise having severe detriment

think of it this way. you order a scotch and coke, that state that they are going to do 30 percent scotch and the rest coke, if you start mixing with the percentage figures of each, you're drink is going to taste different. same way with the earth less co2 = cooler earth we cannot sustain life, more co2, ecosystems and natural processes are impacted upon making it harder for current and previous systems to operate. yes this has occured in nature i.e. ice ages etc but this is different. it would have catastrohpic events for humanity pretty over a short period (50-100 years)