Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ (1 Viewer)

[volition]

There are still plenty of skeptics out there, and they're not all just blindly denying climate change or the scientific practices of the IPCC:

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts by Green and Armstrong.

We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles....Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

Some dude named Taylor did a study of climate models for New Zealand for a period versus the actual temperature and precipitation. The climate models were accurate only 48% of the time. Let's flip a coin to decide!

Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. says in this interview:

"But the models do this without including all the forcings. The models are incomplete."

"Another problem is that our research suggests that the actual warming, particularly the minimum near surface-air temperatures on land, have been overstated. There is a warm bias in these data. So if the models agree with the temperature trends, they do this, at least in part, for the wrong reasons.."

CO2 is also a biogeochemical forcing, so when you increase CO2, plants can respond. All plants like CO2, but some plants like CO2 more which may use water more efficiently. Thus there are complex nonlinear interactions due to increasing CO2. That really complicates how CO2 affects the climate system. Our work suggests that the biogeochemical effects of adding CO2 may have more effect on the climate system than the radiative effect of adding CO2. But the models have inadequately dealt with the biogeochemical effect of CO2.

My understanding of it is that sometimes the scientists have to just have a guess at some of these factors like plants.

Its hard to say that these predictions of impending global warming doom are rock solid and based on good science. We've spent US $50 billion since 1990 on this and we still haven't even been able to really conclusively prove it.

Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.

The costs of thus expiating comfortable middle class angst are, of course, going to be imposed preferentially upon the poor and underprivileged.

 

[Kwayera]

Indeed. I don't deny that the models are incomplete; I'm also not a climate change doomsayer, convinced it's going to kill the planet.

That doesn't mean it isn't happening to a measurable degree, which it is.

Either way, the planet'll fix itself in a few thousand years, though we may not be around to see it. Comforting thought, eh?

 

[Iron]

What's the worst case scenario if we act to reduce carbon emissions, and global warming turns out to be the biggest mistake ever? It's not as though the emissions are harmless. They carry significant risks to health, drinking water, crops, forests, fish/cattle etc. which has the potential to cause catastrophic humanitarian disasters.

Whether >Co2 goes on to result in droughts, raised sea levels, increased natural disasters, changed weather patterns etc appears to hold scientific consensus, but as far as there is doubt, there are still fucking good reasons to act.

 

[Enteebee]

What's the worst case scenario if we act to reduce carbon emissions, and global warming turns out to be the biggest mistake ever?

Money/Goodwill spent on crap that could have been invested to deal with pressing problems that have existed long before global warming?

 

[volition]

Whether >Co2 goes on to result in droughts, raised sea levels, increased natural disasters, changed weather patterns etc appears to hold scientific consensus, but as far as there is doubt, there are still fucking good reasons to act.

From above:

We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles....Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

Not only are some of these global warming advocate scientists being unscientific about the way they go about their science, they're also being a tad intellectually dishonest and claiming that their results have more credence than they really do. I've heard of cases where in earlier IPCC reports, certain types of actual statistical error variances were left out, in order to leave a more "definite bad sign".

When the science fails though, we tend to see an appeal to the 'precautionary principle'. The appeal to the precautionary principle is more a moral appeal than a scientific one.

Believing, as they do, that carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous, warming zealots assert under the precautionary principle that it is better to be safe than sorry - so give up driving your SUV now, and get ready to pay swingeing carbon taxes as well. In the climate and energy context, however, it is not clear what is safe and what is sorry.

What if the world was really cooling instead of warming, and if human C02 warms the world? Then we'd need our emissions! So my problem with this stuff is, "We don't know what is safe", consequently saying "we should do this just to be safe" makes zero sense.

 

[Iron]

Money/Goodwill spent on crap that could have been invested to deal with pressing problems that have existed long before global warming?

Such as? Reducing poverty is the only other worthwhile goal, but it hits a brick wall when you realise that environments are having difficulty sustainig the current rate of consumption under the status quo.
As Kelty said a few weeks ago, this problem, rather than terrorism or Indonesia, will lead to Australia's biggest security concerns in the foreseeable future.

Resource depletion, population explosion, growing health issues, unlivable cities, destroyed food/forest/water supplies (acid rain, exhausted soil, polluted/overallocated rivers). These are the most pressing problems today and are directly linked to the known effects of pollutive practises.
Action on climate change - reducing emissions - is essential in ensuring a secure future.

 

[volition]

Such as?

That money going to AIDS research instead wouldn't have been a bad idea...

Action on climate change - reducing emissions - is essential in ensuring a secure future.

But I just wrote above that we don't know what is 'safe'.

 

[Iron]

What do you mean? We certainly DO know what pollution DIRECTLY does to environments, never mind indirectly. My point is that THAT is reason enough to act. Environmental damage sparks a chain of events which raise serious and urgent humanitarian and security concerns.

 

[volition]

What do you mean? We certainly DO know what pollution DIRECTLY does to environments, never mind indirectly. My point is that THAT is reason enough to act. Environmental damage sparks a chain of events which raise serious and urgent humanitarian and security concerns.

Action on climate change - reducing emissions - is essential in ensuring a secure future.

I was referring to you saying that we have to reduce carbon emissions...

As for 'normal' pollution, well the free society stops this by actually letting everything be owned. Anyone destroying a natural resource has to answer/get sued by the person who owns that resource.

This is as contrasted with the current situation, where stuff is 'collectively' owned and abused by all.

 

[Kwayera]

I was referring to you saying that we have to reduce carbon emissions...

As for 'normal' pollution, well the free society stops this by actually letting everything be owned. Anyone destroying a natural resource has to answer/get sued by the person who owns that resource.

This is as contrasted with the current situation, where stuff is 'collectively' owned and abused by all.

You just contradicted yourself. There is no such thing as 'normal' pollution - the very definition of pollution is something that is abnormal in an environment, be it by addition to normal amounts or introduction of something totally new. In this case, it is pollution by addition - whether it was us or some massive supervolcano pumping extra CO2 into the air, it'd still be pollution.

And if you think that universal private property would be a good thing over collective ownership, than you have no idea how this works. It's not static.

 

[volition]

you just contradicted yourself.

Haha yeah but I didn't mean it like that. When I said "normal pollution" i was more referring to stuff that we do know the effects of, rather than "carbon emissions" which we don't know the effects of.

And if you think that universal private property would be a good thing over collective ownership, than you have no idea how this works. It's not static.

Go on... What are the benefits of collective ownership? (and i mean this in the sense where you don't really have a "claim" to the land other than your democratic vote)

Edit: not just the above, but in order to say that communal ownership should be implemented, you kind of also need to say why the govt (or whatever communal agency) should be able to take away the property right of all the people who originally did own particular bit of land or water or airspace.

I think that even if you could prove communal ownership was better, unless the individual owners voluntarily submit to it, you're on morally shaky ground. It's basically you and the communal using force to implement what you want over that persons property right.

 

[wuddie]

i agree with iron completely.

everyone wants to believe that climate change is not a reality but some sci-fi someone made up. no one wants to know about the extinctions of animals and wildlife - even the great barrier reef we treasure so much, it won't be there before your grandchildren are even born. when will it be before we say its too late to act?

regardless of the existence of climate change, we NEED to reduce pollution of all forms. how can anyone debate that? how else is more important than the environment? someone said poverty - well here is a fast fact for you - the money we spend on food in developed countries in a week, is enough to feed the third world countries for a year. changing poverty is an eas

you see, we all want to shy away from the tough problems and go to the easier ones and convince ourselves the problems will go away itself. well, it won't. reducing pollutions require a lot, A LOT of sacrifices from everyone on this planet, for a long time to come. it will be difficult, no doubt about it. but the longer we are oblivious to the problem, the tougher it will be.

 

[Enteebee]

Resource depletion, population explosion, growing health issues, unlivable cities, destroyed food/forest/water supplies (acid rain, exhausted soil, polluted/overallocated rivers). These are the most pressing problems today and are directly linked to the known effects of pollutive practises.

How many of these issues would be most efficiently addressed by the current campaigns to stop global warming? I would argue for instance that if global warming is wrong and we want to address many of these issues, we will do better by maintaining our coal powerplants for the forseeable future and instead take the wallet hit elsewhere.

As far as a global look goes, more money for more efficient farming practices, better irrigation, GM crops, spending money on cheap vaxines, and water filtration systems seem to be good places to start spending money.

These are things which we won't have as much money to spend on if we go down the path of more expensive cars, more expensive energy and a weaker economy.

I believe in Global warming so this is essentially a moot issue for me, but I can definately see why someone who didn't believe in it wouldn't just go along with the 'yeah well even if it's wrong it's still a good thing', because while it may be, it's not the best good thing we could do - making it not such a good thing

 

[Kwayera]

Haha yeah but I didn't mean it like that. When I said "normal pollution" i was more referring to stuff that we do know the effects of, rather than "carbon emissions" which we don't know the effects of.

That's genuinely untrue. We DO know the effects of CO2 increases, historically. It's just never happened this quickly before, or with so much at stake (anthropocentrism at work).

Go on... What are the benefits of collective ownership? (and i mean this in the sense where you don't really have a "claim" to the land other than your democratic vote)

Edit: not just the above, but in order to say that communal ownership should be implemented, you kind of also need to say why the govt (or whatever communal agency) should be able to take away the property right of all the people who originally did own particular bit of land or water or airspace.

I think that even if you could prove communal ownership was better, unless the individual owners voluntarily submit to it, you're on morally shaky ground. It's basically you and the communal using force to implement what you want over that persons property right.

I had a long debate about the feasibility and appropriateness of universal private property ownership with waf. Neither of us won it, but I'm convinced that UNIVERSAL private ownership isn't the answer. I have a moral problem with the idea that humans have a right to own everything, from water to sky to an animal species. Land is different, but everything on it? It's like saying "I own this land, therefore all the water that goes in and out of it and the sky above it up to infinity."

Collective 'ownership' isn't the answer, either, and I have huge problems with it - but it worked for Antarctica. *shrug* Either way, this thread isn't about communal ownership vs private property.

 

[volition]

That's genuinely untrue. We DO know the effects of CO2 increases, historically. It's just never happened this quickly before, or with so much at stake (anthropocentrism at work).

Not in any sort of long-term predictive sense we don't. That's what this whole global warming debate is about. They can plug the data in from the past and try to explain why x happened, but they still haven't been able to get any real accuracy with future projections/predictions/whatever you wanna call em.

When scientists tell you, "if we double our carbon emissions, temperature rises by x degrees", thats really just their computer model simulation, which hasn't been shown to be accurate/scientific. (like the links i posted above)

I had a long debate about the feasibility and appropriateness of universal private property ownership with waf. Neither of us won it, but I'm convinced that UNIVERSAL private ownership isn't the answer. I have a moral problem with the idea that humans have a right to own everything, from water to sky to an animal species. Land is different, but everything on it? It's like saying "I own this land, therefore all the water that goes in and out of it and the sky above it up to infinity."

Collective 'ownership' isn't the answer, either, and I have huge problems with it - but it worked for Antarctica. *shrug* Either way, this thread isn't about communal ownership vs private property.

If your answer is neither private property or communal ownership, then why did you even bother raising this issue in the first place? Whats your solution then?

afaik, We don't know what "the safe" option is, so any appeal to the precautionary principle does absolutely nothing. It may not be the case that cutting emissions is the safe thing to do. So consequently I say, lets not cut our CO2 emissions anymore than what we can predict will harm us.

 

[veridis]

That money going to AIDS research instead wouldn't have been a bad idea...

you means you're not an AIDS sceptic too? read http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm, given the logic you've demonstrated I'm sure you'll agree.

Haha yeah but I didn't mean it like that. When I said "normal pollution" i was more referring to stuff that we do know the effects of, rather than "carbon emissions" which we don't know the effects of.

When scientists tell you, "if we double our carbon emissions, temperature rises by x degrees", thats really just their computer model simulation, which hasn't been shown to be accurate/scientific.

i'd like to see ANY prediction not based on a mathematical computer model simulation. i'll say it again if you want to take the position "we're not 100% sure" then you have to disregard any concept of truth or fact. every single thing we assume to "know" about the future is purely inductive. all predictions are based to a certain degree on guesswork and assumptions of general lawlike behaviour that have absolutely no logical foundation. it's good to be open to new evidence, to choose a position with even less empirical backing than the one you criticise merely because you agree with it's moral underpinnings and does a disservice the the label sceptic. being sceptical means hedging your bets and keeping options open, not complete denial.

 

[jb_nc]

THE FREE MARKET

THE GOLD STANDARD

NO GOVERNMENT

the only solutions to global warming

 

[volition]

you means you're not an AIDS sceptic too? read http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm, given the logic you've demonstrated I'm sure you'll agree.

I haven't done any reading about AIDS, so I'm not going to comment on it.

i'd like to see ANY prediction not based on a mathematical computer model simulation. i'll say it again if you want to take the position "we're not 100% sure" then you have to disregard any concept of truth or fact. every single thing we assume to "know" about the future is purely inductive. all predictions are based to a certain degree on guesswork and assumptions of general lawlike behaviour that have absolutely no logical foundation. it's good to be open to new evidence, to choose a position with even less empirical backing than the one you criticise merely because you agree with it's moral underpinnings and does a disservice the the label sceptic. being sceptical means hedging your bets and keeping options open, not complete denial.

You haven't been paying attention to what I've posted.

What the IPCC are doing, is poor science:

We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles

When you violate principles of testing and so on, how can you claim that the results still hold?

What about the conflict of interest?

The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.

Here's a resignation letter of an IPCC scientist, saying that it was politicized and scientifically unsound in the IPCC environment.

Don't forget, that NZ study link, showed that NIWA prediction models basically had no real predictive power, only being right about 50% of the time.

Conclusion: The overall impression is that the NIWA projections are no better than guess work.

So its not a position of me saying "oh its a computer model and computer models might be wrong, we could never be 100% blah blah" - I'm saying, when you base this on poor science, and your models have no predictive power, the outcomes of those models are not to be taken with a high degree of seriousness.

Consequently, it is a bad idea to limit CO2 emissions based on this poor science. If we see more credible science, able to explain more forcings on the weather, then yes, this may change and it may make sense to limit emissions. But not yet.

THE GOLD STANDARD

Just a minor correction bro, I support free market determination of currency, which doesn't necessarily mean gold standard.

Besides, if you aren't for these things, what are you for? Violence against the public? Good one.

 

[veridis]

IPCC is getting more politicised i'll agree, happens to every body as it gets more powerful. note however that in resigning Dr Landsea doesn't argue against human caused climate change rather at the ineffectiveness of the IPCC as an organisation and the misuse of results for media coverage, both of which are valid concerns. it is a logical fallacy to claim that because the theory is misused that it is wrong. attacking one piece of evidence does not discredit a theory. if you can't distinguish between the theory and the use of the theory, or between the theory and the IPCC then you have a lot more reading to do.
as for your usse of the NIWA report you do realise it was a criticism based on two conflicting climate change models and the purpose was to show "i'm more right than they are" rather than discredit the underlying theory. if you looked at the report you'll notice that the relative difference between regions was reasonably accurate in all but one forecast, the dispute is over the magnitude of the change, something which is an entirely definitional dispute. the mere fact that you have to resort to sych an obscure study as a main piece of evidence i think shows how weak your position is.

 

[Kwayera]

The key thing is to NOT read the IPCC summaries. Those are politicised and biased.

Read the damn papers, not the faulty interpretations that were the basis for those shoddy models.