Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 15:33:33

you can find this shit yourself. I'm giving two related article (with links, mind you), then I have to move on to other things and let others pick up the pieces. Best luck with your delusions.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .2762/full

I guess it might help if (as usual) you actually read anything you posted about.

The paper
Curran J and Curran S, 2016. An estimate of the climate change significance of the decline in the Northern Hemisphere’s uptake of carbon dioxide in biomass. Weather. DOI: 10.1002/wea.2762

is not a response to papers that actually measure the greening of the global by remote sensing. All it does is look at CO2 output as measured at Mauna Loa and suggests that because there is an inter-annual drop in measured atmospheric CO2 it must be due to biomass not taking up CO2. There is no evidence or direct measures of biomass CO2 consumption and certainly no measure of global greening. In essence you have provided a red herring argument. Again it would help if you learned to read something before you posted on it.

Trees and plants reached 'peak carbon' 10 years ago

https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/tree ... -years-ago


And that link is nothing more than a press release referring to the above paper that shows no direct evidence for what proportion of CO2 is being ingested by plant life. As said above this is completely a red herring when it comes to looking at remote sensing analysis of global greening. Perhaps you don't understand what was being argued in the first place?

And in any case, whatever extra uptake of atmospheric CO2 plants may or may have been responsible for, it hasn't kept actual CO2 levels from continuing their dizzying increase, and the earths soils, especially in the far north, are about to start dumping massive amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere:


And now changing the argument to something entirely different. Who do you actually think you are kidding here?
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5506
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby pstarr » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 15:44:41

rockdoc123 wrote:
you can find this shit yourself. I'm giving two related article (with links, mind you), then I have to move on to other things and let others pick up the pieces. Best luck with your delusions.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .2762/full

I guess it might help if (as usual) you actually read anything you posted about.

The paper
Curran J and Curran S, 2016. An estimate of the climate change significance of the decline in the Northern Hemisphere’s uptake of carbon dioxide in biomass. Weather. DOI: 10.1002/wea.2762

is not a response to papers that actually measure the greening of the global by remote sensing. All it does is look at CO2 output as measured at Mauna Loa and suggests that because there is an inter-annual drop in measured atmospheric CO2 it must be due to biomass not taking up CO2. There is no evidence or direct measures of biomass CO2 consumption and certainly no measure of global greening. In essence you have provided a red herring argument. Again it would help if you learned to read something before you posted on it.

Trees and plants reached 'peak carbon' 10 years ago

https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/tree ... -years-ago


And that link is nothing more than a press release referring to the above paper that shows no direct evidence for what proportion of CO2 is being ingested by plant life. As said above this is completely a red herring when it comes to looking at remote sensing analysis of global greening. Perhaps you don't understand what was being argued in the first place?

And in any case, whatever extra uptake of atmospheric CO2 plants may or may have been responsible for, it hasn't kept actual CO2 levels from continuing their dizzying increase, and the earths soils, especially in the far north, are about to start dumping massive amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere:


And now changing the argument to something entirely different. Who do you actually think you are kidding here?

he's not kidding me either. rock, thanks for bothering to read the paper. Unfortunately dohboi won't, or can't. It is science after all.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26326
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby Subjectivist » Tue 03 Jan 2017, 15:31:19

Two weeks after officials in two dozen states asked Republican President-elect Donald Trump to kill one of Democratic President Barack Obama's signature plans to curb global warming, another group of state officials is urging Trump to save it.

Democratic attorneys general in 15 states plus four cities and counties sent a letter to Trump asking him to preserve Obama's Clean Power Plan, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the lead author, announced Thursday.

The letter was a rebuttal to one sent this month by Republican officials from West Virginia and 21 other states and Democrats from the coal-producing states of Kentucky and Missouri urging Trump to issue a Day 1 executive order declaring the Clean Power Plan unlawful and prohibiting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing it.

The Clean Power Plan aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants, the nation's largest source of the pollution, by about one-third by 2030. Opponents say the Environmental Protection Agency lacks authority to implement the rules. The plan is already the subject of a legal fight.

Trump has called the science showing climate change a hoax. His choice to head the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has sued the EPA repeatedly to stop its climate agenda including Obama's sweeping power plant rules. And his nominee to run the Department of Energy, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, has questioned climate science while working to promote coal-fired power in Texas. But in a television interview this month Trump said he was "still open-minded" about the science of climate change.

Schneiderman said states like New York are "on the front lines of climate change" and have demonstrated how to cut pollution and emissions while protecting affordable and reliable electricity, creating jobs and growing the economy.

"The Clean Power Plan builds on that successful work and is a blueprint for the critical action needed to fight climate change's devastating environmental, economic and public health impacts," he said.

Under Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's Clean Energy Standard, established this year, 50 percent of New York state's electricity must come from renewable energy sources like wind and solar by 2030. New York and eight other states are part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program that has reduced carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation in the region by 40 percent from 2005 levels.

In California, the nation's most populous state, which also signed the letter, the goal is also to have half of its energy from renewable sources by 2030 and a 40 percent reduction of greenhouse gases.

The letter to Trump lists local impacts of climate change from fossil fuel emissions, including drought in California, catastrophic storm surge in New York City, a record deluge on Colorado's Front Range, high-tide flooding in Virginia and South Florida and diminished shellfish harvest in Oregon and Washington state.

The legal challenge, filed by 27 states that oppose the Clean Power Plan, is before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. A decision on the plan could come at any time, but the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked implementation of the rule until the court challenge is resolved.

Still, even if Trump wants to scrap the plan, it would be a large, time-consuming task.

David Doniger, a climate policy expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council who served on Democratic President Bill Clinton's White House Council of Environmental Quality, said the Trump administration "can't make it go away unless they go through a rule-making process and unwind it."

"And that's a public process, so they'll have to hear from supporters of the plan," he said.

If Trump were to issue the executive order being asked for by the plan's opponents, since the plan has gone through a formal process to become a regulation it would still require a long, public process to undo, Doniger said.

Besides New York and California, the letter is signed by attorneys general from the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, as well as officials from Broward County and South Miami, Florida, Boulder, Colorado and New York City.


http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/2 ... ads-states’-urges-trump-over-obama-global-warming-plan
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4118
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 03 Jan 2017, 22:29:19

If the Democratically controlled blue states want to follow the clean power plan what is there to stop them from following that course independently if the Federal government removes the mandate at their level?
They would only have their voters to answer to.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 04 Jan 2017, 05:58:04

vtsnowedin wrote:If the Democratically controlled blue states want to follow the clean power plan what is there to stop them from following that course independently if the Federal government removes the mandate at their level?
They would only have their voters to answer to.


Authoritarians many of whom seem to have power in Blue states want to be able to say it is a federal mandate so that the voter repercussions are diverted away from them and focused on other persons. Kind of wanting to have their cake (control of the mass behavior) while eating it (those people did it I am a victim too). That is the problem with the eternal blame game, if you never take responsibility then ultimately you accomplish very little of lasting impact.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14057
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 04 Jan 2017, 06:11:11

Tanada wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:If the Democratically controlled blue states want to follow the clean power plan what is there to stop them from following that course independently if the Federal government removes the mandate at their level?
They would only have their voters to answer to.


Authoritarians many of whom seem to have power in Blue states want to be able to say it is a federal mandate so that the voter repercussions are diverted away from them and focused on other persons. Kind of wanting to have their cake (control of the mass behavior) while eating it (those people did it I am a victim too). That is the problem with the eternal blame game, if you never take responsibility then ultimately you accomplish very little of lasting impact.

Exactly. But if it is such a good idea then it is a good idea even if the Feds are not behind it. If the Dems want to demonstrate real leadership they should move ahead based on the facts to show they are worthy of regaining control of the government.
The Democrats have no bench and their leadership are fossils looking for a wheel chair.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby Cog » Wed 04 Jan 2017, 06:59:32

There is also another factor. If it is a federal mandate, the full weight of the federal government and all its departments, like the EPA, DOT, and DOJ can be brought to bear on those states or individual companies who do not wish to comply. If it is a state mandate, a company can simply choose to move its operations to another state that doesn't have that mandate.

Not surprisingly, federal mandates are the preferred option from those on the left, who never object to federal over-reach or excessive taxation.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9485
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby dissident » Tue 14 Mar 2017, 17:22:33

https://youtu.be/A_RxpB3wtvU

Nice rebuttal of the new EPA head clown.

The problem with denier Pruitt is that denial does not reap the benefits that he thinks it does. Nobody is going to shut down Exxon and they can pass any carbon tax costs down to the sucker consumers. But those sucker consumers are going to have to pay for flooding of low lying coastal regions of the USA to the tune of hundreds of billions of current dollars.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4947
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 14 Mar 2017, 20:28:26

dissident wrote:https://youtu.be/A_RxpB3wtvU

Nice rebuttal of the new EPA head clown.

The problem with denier Pruitt is that denial does not reap the benefits that he thinks it does. Nobody is going to shut down Exxon and they can pass any carbon tax costs down to the sucker consumers. But those sucker consumers are going to have to pay for flooding of low lying coastal regions of the USA to the tune of hundreds of billions of current dollars.
Do you actually think there is something or some policy that could be done or adopted that will stop the changes in the climate we are experiencing? If so what is it and how will you get enough of the worlds population to do what is needed to achieve that goal?
That the climate is changing is not the argument. It is what if anything can be done to change it back and failing that how will we adapt to our new climate?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 18 Mar 2017, 05:32:15

Science is a matter of evidence, not what a majority of scientists think…. The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus."

-----Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby dissident » Sat 18 Mar 2017, 07:44:17

KaiserJeep wrote:
Science is a matter of evidence, not what a majority of scientists think…. The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus."

-----Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT


The term "scientific consensus" is one used in politics and internet fora. I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles. Lindzen is twisting facts and outright lying by insinuating that scientists operate by consensus. No they f*cking don't. It is actually a competitive field where scientists rush to submit publications not to be preempted by other scientists. Scientists push their own interpretations of the data and get into heated debates about this. Peer review is a type of battlefield where competitors have to come to a truce based on facts to have the paper published. This is pertinent to the paper contents and not some global consensus designed for political consumption.

Monolithic science my ass, you corporate whore. For those that do not know, Lindzen was funded by coal companies. Science is the closest thing you will find to an ideal market economy consisting of many small producers in perfect competition. Corporations are the ones that want to impose state capitalism and bootlick conformity on this system. Good thing is that most scientists can't be so easily bought and are passionate about their work.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4947
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 18 Mar 2017, 11:25:39

The term "scientific consensus" is one used in politics and internet fora. I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles.


apparently you haven't read all that many scientific journal articles then, here is a small sampling:

Oreskes, Naomi. "The scientific consensus on climate change." Science 306.5702 (2004): 1686-1686.

Doran, Peter T., and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. "Examining the scientific consensus on climate change." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90.3 (2009): 22-23.

Hewitson, B. C., and R. G. Crane. "Consensus between GCM climate change projections with empirical downscaling: precipitation downscaling over South Africa." International Journal of Climatology 26.10 (2006): 1315-1337.

Legates, David R., Willie Soon, and William M. Briggs. "Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: A rejoinder to Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change." Science & Education 24.3 (2015): 299-318.

Van der Sluijs, Jeroen, et al. "Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy The Case of Consensus around Climate Sensitivity." Social studies of science 28.2 (1998): 291-323.

Smol, John P., and Marianne SV Douglas. "From controversy to consensus: making the case for recent climate change in the Arctic using lake sediments." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5.9 (2007): 466-474.

Oreskes, Naomi. "The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong?." Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren (2007): 65-99.

Nordhaus, Ted, and Michael Shellenberger. "The emerging climate consensus: Global warming policy in a post-environmental world." The January Group [available at www. thebreakthrough. org] (2009).

Kerr, Richard A. "Three degrees of consensus: climate researchers are finally homing in on just how bad greenhouse warming could get--and it seems increasingly unlikely that we will escape with a mild warming." Science 305.5686 (2004): 932-935.

Maurer, Edwin P. "Climate model based consensus on the hydrologic impacts of climate change to the Rio Lempa basin of Central America." (2009).

Walther, Gian-Reto, et al. "Consensus on climate change." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20.12 (2005): 648-649.

Grundmann, Reiner. "Ozone and climate scientific consensus and leadership." Science, Technology & Human Values 31.1 (2006): 73-101.

Bray, Dennis. "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited." Environmental science & policy 13.5 (2010): 340-350.

Rizzuto, Tracey E., Susan Mohammed, and Robert J. Vance. "Marching in-step: Facilitating technological transitions through climate consensus." Computers in Human Behavior 27.1 (2011): 185-194.

van der Linden, Sander L., et al. "The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence." PloS one 10.2 (2015): e0118489.

Power, Scott B., et al. "Consensus on twenty-first-century rainfall projections in climate models more widespread than previously thought." Journal of Climate 25.11 (2012): 3792-3809

Maibach, Edward, Teresa Myers, and Anthony Leiserowitz. "Climate scientists need to set the record straight: There is a scientific consensus that human‐caused climate change is happening." Earth's Future 2.5 (2014): 295-298.

Githeko, A. K., and A. Woodward. "International consensus on the science of climate and health: the IPCC Third Assessment Report." Climate change and human health: risks and responses (2003): 43-60.

Lewandowsky, Stephan. "Popular consensus: Climate change is set to continue." Psychological Science 22.4 (2011): 460-463.


van der Linden, Sander L., et al. "How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors?." Climatic Change 126.1-2 (2014): 255-262.

Lewandowsky, Stephan, Gilles E. Gignac, and Samuel Vaughan. "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science." Nature Climate Change 3.4 (2013): 399-404.

Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. "Scientific consensus and climate change: the codification of a global research agenda." Energy & Environment 4.4 (1993): 362-407.

Blockstein, D and Wiegman, L. “The Climate Solutions Consensus”. Island Press, (2009): 336 pages.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5506
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 18 Mar 2017, 12:18:50

For all you believers in consensus, the rubber is about to meet the runway. In the past administration, R&D climate funding was available in relative abundance, and the only contenders for the money were seeking to prove AGW. Now government funding on climate is much reduced (or soon will be) with preference in awarding funding given to those seeking to disprove AGW. We are about to experience a convincing demonstration of "objective" scientific research. The sound of grant proposals being "flipped" from one position to the reverse will soon be deafening. Which is fine with me, I have always considered this topic to be politics and not science.

So (for those who have any left the day after St. Patrick's day) don't go crying in your beer. There is actually not going to be much change in policy or actual impact on people. The climate debate has always been one act in a three-ring circus, intended to divert your attention from corrupt government. The actual difference to most Americans will be nil. Only climate researchers will see a change, and it will be a significant but not dramatic change, they must publish a different piece of creative fiction to get government R&D funding.

Meanwhile the merry dance of drilling/pumping/piping/refining/retailing/burning of oil and gas will continue, as will the digging/transport/burning of coal. Obama simply said different words than will Trump, before each juiced the He!! out of the energy companies paying them through the system of lobbyists. The American way of life is safe and secure and will not noticeably change.

As for me, I will still be seeking out a homestead and a lifestyle as free from dependencies on FF's as I can make them. Politics does not trump reality, even when the POTUS is named Trump. But if there are fewer nuts screaming shrilly about AGW/CC, that will be a blessing, those whack jobs are SO ANNOYING.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby kiwichick » Sat 18 Mar 2017, 12:39:37

@ kj..................mate you need professional help
User avatar
kiwichick
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 18 Mar 2017, 12:54:21

KP - Yes indeed: the hypocrisy on both sides has been well established. I, for one. have no problem accepting the possibility of AGW existing to some degree. Was well studied by the Rockman working on his BS in Earth Science back in the early 70's. But belief or non-belief isn't very relevant in the real world since there has never been much EFFECTIVE EFFORT to alter the path the we are on even by the vocal and RELATIVELY influential powers that be espousing concerns over climate change. Pointed out a valid example just yesterday: the EU Commission, composed of the most environmentally concerned collection of countries on the planet, VOTED OVEWHELMINGLY AGAINST a resolution to ban Arctic oil exploration. Future oil consumption that would not only add to AGW but also pose a direct risk to that "pristine environment". And making the vote even more hypocritical: it wasn't a binding resolution. Even had it passed it would not have penalized any country, such as Norway or Denmark, for developing Arctic oil.

IOW even a grandstanding environmental concerned ploy with no teeth couldn't garner support from the most anti fossil fuel collection of greenies in the world. In that case does it really matter if any conclusive evidence supporting or denying climate change due to AGW be developed? If the answer is no then why would we provide much space here arguing about it?
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10637
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 18 Mar 2017, 13:37:18

Well said RM. You and I stand on opposite sides of the AGW/CC debate, but we are not that far apart, as we are both close to center. And we agree about the central fact: that the policy impact is practically nil, it's all about diverting attention from the politician behind the curtain, who is pocketing cash as fast as he can.

As for the rest of you, who still cling to your cherished delusions about "saving the planet", you need to grow up and acquire an adult perspective on the world. It does not matter what a politician says, only what he does. Politicians with both Liberal and Conservative credentials are busy lining their pockets, while a steady stream of brown stuff is flowing from their backsides, into the mouths of those who still think that if they could simply vote for the right person, after figuring out who that was, we would all be saved.

Give it up. The government is not going to take care of you, you have to do that yourself. The basic responsibility to find enough food and water and shelter and healthcare and energy is yours, for the rest of your life. THEY understand this better than you do, they have always been taking care of themselves first. There have been a few oddballs like Ross Perot and Bernie Sanders (bet you never read those names together before) but they are exceptions to the rule, and thus rightfully regarded as aberrant individuals. But people like Obama and Trump are mainstream.

So lose the unhealthy preoccupation with politics, AGW/CC, religion, or whatever else afflicts you. Get on with your life.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 18 Mar 2017, 17:01:48

dissident wrote:-snip-

The term "scientific consensus" is one used in politics and internet fora. I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles. Lindzen is twisting facts and outright lying by insinuating that scientists operate by consensus. No they f*cking don't. It is actually a competitive field where scientists rush to submit publications not to be preempted by other scientists. Scientists push their own interpretations of the data and get into heated debates about this. Peer review is a type of battlefield where competitors have to come to a truce based on facts to have the paper published. This is pertinent to the paper contents and not some global consensus designed for political consumption.

Monolithic science my ass, you corporate whore. For those that do not know, Lindzen was funded by coal companies. Science is the closest thing you will find to an ideal market economy consisting of many small producers in perfect competition. Corporations are the ones that want to impose state capitalism and bootlick conformity on this system. Good thing is that most scientists can't be so easily bought and are passionate about their work.


Where did you hear that Lindzen was funded by coal companies?
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 18 Mar 2017, 23:53:43

It has always been worrisome to me that every so-called solution to global warming subverts rather than enhances human freedom and advances the power of the state to regulate energy, industrial activity, and individual behavior That seems to me, a denier, or whatever term you want to use, a potentially greater threat to the future of human welfare than even climate change. Václav Klaus, the former president of the Czech Republic, made this same point when he declared: “What is at risk is not the climate but freedom.”

----Thomas Smith
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby Ibon » Sun 19 Mar 2017, 07:09:09

KaiserJeep wrote:
It has always been worrisome to me that every so-called solution to global warming subverts rather than enhances human freedom and advances the power of the state to regulate energy, industrial activity, and individual behavior That seems to me, a denier, or whatever term you want to use, a potentially greater threat to the future of human welfare than even climate change. Václav Klaus, the former president of the Czech Republic, made this same point when he declared: “What is at risk is not the climate but freedom.”

----Thomas Smith


Remember Asimov's bathroom analogy which has been quoted on this site dozens of times but addresses this.

Isaac Asimov on dignity

Q: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if this population growth continues at its present rate?

It will be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor: If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want to and stay as long as you want to for whatever you need. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom; it should be right there in the Constitution.

But if you have twenty people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door: “Aren’t you through yet?” and so on. In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.
— Isaac Asimov, American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University, best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books (1920-1992),


There are entitlements on the political left and right which will be severely challenged by the upcoming physical constraints whether caused by climate change or peak oil, both of which most of us here agree are two symptoms of over population.

The entitlement of social justice for all is about as absurd as the idea of unlimited and unregulated individual freedoms in an over populated world. Both are quaint ideas that can be nurtured and enhanced in times of opulence, both become under siege when external physical constraints start to bite.

This is why the current political divide is really about both parties whining over an ideal of a past that wont cut it in the future when you see where we are heading.

All of this explains of course why climate change became a political issue.

The friction around the topic of climate change is really about the lack of space as apposing ideologies get moved by constraints toward the bottle neck.

In times of opulence you can have two ideologies standing side by side and cohabitating the same space. The political left and the political right can indulge in their respective ideologies and there is enough wealth and space for both to be emboldened.

We should pay attention why all the growing heated polarity in our culture and politics that seems to be growing.

I define this as ideologies under siege from forces external.

Forces that will continue to heat up the divide but that will also one day break it.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6005
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby dissident » Sun 19 Mar 2017, 08:33:04

rockdoc123 wrote:
The term "scientific consensus" is one used in politics and internet fora. I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles.


apparently you haven't read all that many scientific journal articles then, here is a small sampling:

Oreskes, Naomi. "The scientific consensus on climate change." Science 306.5702 (2004): 1686-1686.

Doran, Peter T., and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. "Examining the scientific consensus on climate change." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90.3 (2009): 22-23.

Hewitson, B. C., and R. G. Crane. "Consensus between GCM climate change projections with empirical downscaling: precipitation downscaling over South Africa." International Journal of Climatology 26.10 (2006): 1315-1337.

Legates, David R., Willie Soon, and William M. Briggs. "Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: A rejoinder to Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change." Science & Education 24.3 (2015): 299-318.

Van der Sluijs, Jeroen, et al. "Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy The Case of Consensus around Climate Sensitivity." Social studies of science 28.2 (1998): 291-323.

Smol, John P., and Marianne SV Douglas. "From controversy to consensus: making the case for recent climate change in the Arctic using lake sediments." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5.9 (2007): 466-474.

Oreskes, Naomi. "The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong?." Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren (2007): 65-99.

Nordhaus, Ted, and Michael Shellenberger. "The emerging climate consensus: Global warming policy in a post-environmental world." The January Group [available at www. thebreakthrough. org] (2009).

Kerr, Richard A. "Three degrees of consensus: climate researchers are finally homing in on just how bad greenhouse warming could get--and it seems increasingly unlikely that we will escape with a mild warming." Science 305.5686 (2004): 932-935.

Maurer, Edwin P. "Climate model based consensus on the hydrologic impacts of climate change to the Rio Lempa basin of Central America." (2009).

Walther, Gian-Reto, et al. "Consensus on climate change." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20.12 (2005): 648-649.

Grundmann, Reiner. "Ozone and climate scientific consensus and leadership." Science, Technology & Human Values 31.1 (2006): 73-101.

Bray, Dennis. "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited." Environmental science & policy 13.5 (2010): 340-350.

Rizzuto, Tracey E., Susan Mohammed, and Robert J. Vance. "Marching in-step: Facilitating technological transitions through climate consensus." Computers in Human Behavior 27.1 (2011): 185-194.

van der Linden, Sander L., et al. "The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence." PloS one 10.2 (2015): e0118489.

Power, Scott B., et al. "Consensus on twenty-first-century rainfall projections in climate models more widespread than previously thought." Journal of Climate 25.11 (2012): 3792-3809

Maibach, Edward, Teresa Myers, and Anthony Leiserowitz. "Climate scientists need to set the record straight: There is a scientific consensus that human‐caused climate change is happening." Earth's Future 2.5 (2014): 295-298.

Githeko, A. K., and A. Woodward. "International consensus on the science of climate and health: the IPCC Third Assessment Report." Climate change and human health: risks and responses (2003): 43-60.

Lewandowsky, Stephan. "Popular consensus: Climate change is set to continue." Psychological Science 22.4 (2011): 460-463.


van der Linden, Sander L., et al. "How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors?." Climatic Change 126.1-2 (2014): 255-262.

Lewandowsky, Stephan, Gilles E. Gignac, and Samuel Vaughan. "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science." Nature Climate Change 3.4 (2013): 399-404.

Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. "Scientific consensus and climate change: the codification of a global research agenda." Energy & Environment 4.4 (1993): 362-407.

Blockstein, D and Wiegman, L. “The Climate Solutions Consensus”. Island Press, (2009): 336 pages.


Take a hike denier. These samples are all fluff pieces. There is not a single physical process paper in the above list. "How to communiate"? WTF is that? I have submitted papers on model process studies and not "how to communicate". I have presented at conferences my work and have listened to other researchers present their results. I have never seen or heard the term "scientific consensus" used since it has no meaning in the context of research. A title such as:

The scientific consensus on GCR impacts on the atmosphere dynamics

sounds utterly retarded. You are listing articles aimed at policy people. They are not even physics review articles.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4947
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests