Climate Change

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

well quality of life indexes are notoriously difficult to correlate , depending ion how absolute income levels are weighted

IN general The top 4 , tend to be picked from , Norway,Sweden,Australia, NZ & Canada,Netherlands etc

heres a map based on the Human development Index.

World Map - Top Ten Countries with Highest Quality of Life

Finland rarely rates by the way, nor does Denmark.

dave

And it's a lot easier for a small country to deviate from the mean then a large one...

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

"Ill informed" seems to be a catch all for "doesn't fit my prejudices".

Firstly, Sweden isn't socialist. Cuba is. ...

Just what I said
Cuba is comunist, certainly not socialist.
Sweden is not comunist.
Sweden had from time to time a socialist government , not comunist.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Good points on the thickness of the ice vs. its extent.

I don't know of anyone who doubts the earth is warming. The question is whether the nostrums proposed by AGW fans make any sense. ......

Supporters of AGW continue to assert, like GoBoatingNow, that somehow the question is so settled that they can make declarative statements that man made global warming is a fact. This is nonsense. In fact, a majority (64%) of geo-scientists now are skeptical of AGW, and for good reason - the data is too weak to draw scientific conclusions, much less conclusions that dictate we should damage our economy pursuing some leftists view of good climate policy.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

These geo-scientists sensibly note the overwhelming impact of natural causes of warming, and so reject the politically motivated calls for DOING SOMETHING, even if that something is completely pointless.

And yes, it is a political issue because yes, most AGW enthusiasts also just happen to be big government enthusiasts, a.k.a. liberals.

from that reference
"
The survey the author cites isn’t “scientists” as stated in the title of the op-ed, it is a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. That’s like surveying tobacco company CEO’s about the dangers of smoking. It would be a reasonable piece about the opinion of petroleum engineers in Alberta if that was made clear, instead that was hidden. I wonder why?
"

Alberta, !!!!!

This is the trouible with the deniers, use half-assed reports and media savy noinsense to muddy the waters.

AGW is accepted by climate scientists, that debate is over, The debate now, is what is the effect and time scale. Some scientists point to smaller change, others model and report larger more dramatic effects.

And yes, it is a political issue because yes, most AGW enthusiasts also just happen to be big government enthusiasts, a.k.a. liberals

stuff and nonsense, US politics and laughable from outside the US perspective. Im a fiscal conservative,social liberal, centre right, controlled capitalist, social democrat. Of course that puts me to the left of Castro as far as the Tea party and its followers are concerned.

Whats a "big government" enthusiast, how that view work out in the last election huh.

much less conclusions that dictate we should damage our economy pursuing some leftists view of good climate policy.

I dont know, two terms of republician presidents and silly right wing nonsense and their ego-wars did quite a nice job of damaging your economy.


Dave

[goboatingnow]

Firstly, Sweden isn't socialist. Cuba is. Guess where people from Cuba would rather live...
Secondly, the Swedes themselves are starting to realize their welfare state might not be sustainable. Any system the redistributes income creates incentives for people that are more productive to leave. In the end you are left with nobody to hold the safety net up. Sweden is also increasingly having problems with the permanent underclass it created. Witness the recent riots in Stockholm...

This is to mis-characterise what is going on in Sweden, Sweden is social democracy, There is widespread support for its social welfare model ( as a general term). Many Swedes have criticisms of aspects of that model, but thats not to say they wish anything like the proposed right wing US republican model. ( a model that they only recently adopted BTW).

Comparing Sweden, or Denmark with the US is also a bit of a dishonest comparison. Sweden is a small country. It's easy to be special when you are small. I would like to see a breakdown of HDI for each US state. I wouldn't be surprised if several US states scored in the same league as Scandinavia.
And don't discount culture. Sweden is populated by Swedes. There aren't many poor Swedes in the US either...

The scandavian model is not much different to most of Europe, if you look closely enough. Even with austerity in some states, there is no demand to dismantle the welfare state. Even the conservatives in the UK are far left when compared to right wing US thinking.

Europe fundamentally believes in the social welfare model, Thats not to say it belives in forced income redistribution, but it does believe in subsidised healthcare, schooling, housing and a safety net under the under privileged. Government is not seen as "big" or "small" but mainly that it implements whats it says it will and reasonable efficiently.

Heres the most recent HDI index Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NOTE that Norway remains consistently at the top of the HDI scale

Teh US is up in the top three. having risen one place and swoped with the Netherlands, Canada dropped 5 places

Heres the individual states that are greater or equal to then Norway 0.955 ( there are inconsistencies as to US HDI and UNHDI methods YMMV)

1. Connecticut 0.962
2. Massachusetts 0.962
3. Utah 0.961
4. Pennsylvania 0.958
5. California 0.957
6. New York 0.956
7. New Jersey 0.955

Heres teh US states below the top 10 , ie 0.911
41.Montana 0.908
42. South Carolina 0.904
43. Kentucky 0.900
44. Tennessee 0.899
45. Arkansas 0.894
46. Oklahoma 0.890
47. Louisiana 0.889
48. Alabama 0.888
49. West Virginia 0.878
50. Mississippi 0.867

Note that the US government spending , ajusted to allow comparison is with 2-5% of the EU27 countries , ie the US is just a 'Socialist' country as the EU is .!!!!! ( build a bridge and get over it I say)


Obama isnt making the US like Europe , its already is!. ( just with added pretzels )
Dave

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

In fact, a majority (64%) of geo-scientists now are skeptical of AGW, and for good reason - the data is too weak to draw scientific conclusions, much less conclusions that dictate we should damage our economy pursuing some leftists view of good climate policy.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

?

You and James Taylor of the Heartland Institute are flat-out wrong.

Had you actually read the Forbes article AND the comments you would have found:

Dear Mr. Taylor -

Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.

All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.

But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!

We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.

Best regards,

Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer.

They are the study authors.

I read the original study as well and found this cavaet

Given our nonprobability sample, there are limitations. First, though it is not our intent to generalize.
to larger populations but to create theoretical generalizability, response bias is still a possible concern.
However, such concern is reduced by the accessibility of the survey to all APEGA members without any.
systematic exclusion, the fact that members were responding to a survey by their regulator as they normally.
would, the respectable size of our sample, and the apparent representativeness of respondents to.
the membership as a whole. Second, framings are socio-historical constructions – embedded in specific.
worldviews, social positions, and interests that are bounded in space and time. Thus, the specific socioeconomic.
location of our group of experts – the constellation of professional designations and industries,
and the relevance of the petroleum industry for Alberta – may influence the findings, especially the.
frequency of frames. In addition, while these experts’ framings may have represented those of October.
2007 in Alberta, Canada, the science and policy positions may have since shifted there as elsewhere.

The 64% number is wrong.

From the study - Science or Science Fiction? Professionals

The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.

The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth

Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused

‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused

The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused,

And these folks work mainly in the oil and gas industry.

Bottom line. 24% of the AEGA members who answered the survey believe that global warming is caused by natural causes only. That is from the peer-reviewed journal article.

BTW - I live in Alberta.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

In fact, a majority (64%) of geo-scientists now are skeptical of AGW, and for good reason - the data is too weak to draw scientific conclusions,

What an own goal!

Did you bother to research for a moment the survey you quoted or even glance at their comments on the Forbes piece?




"…even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause."

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2...y-180-degrees/

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

What an own goal!

Did you bother to research for a moment the survey you quoted or even glance at their comments on the Forbes piece?




"…even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause."

James Taylor misinterprets study by 180 degrees | Climate Science Watch

Yes, Scooter, I did.

And of course humans are having an effect on enhancing background natural warming. A gnat fart impacts a hurricane's strength, so how could it be otherwise with men's activities. The issue is whether it is significant enough to warrant the silly responses of silly people where those responses are damaging to the economies of the world.

CO2 is supposed to be the culprit greenhouse gas all this kerfuffle is about. Man made contributions to atmospheric CO2 are about 4% of the total. Eliminate men, and you'll still have global warming if CO2 has any bearing on warming. Heck, from what you've written, you should be happy if global warming causes people to die since you feel there are too many of the pesky critters anyway, so what are you complaining about?

For those of us who value human life, we would prefer not going bankrupt addressing a minute portion of a minute portion of a gas that may, or may not be a cause rather than an effect of otherwise natural warming.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Yes, Scooter, I did.

If you checked out the survey mentioned in the Forbes article you would have realized that Taylor misquoted it and presented a view diametrically opposed to what the authors discovered.

I read the Forbes article and a couple of other sites that referenced it. I read the survey authors' comments. And I read the original paper.

Only 24% of the surveyed AGEGA members attributed global warming to natural causes only. The rest of the "frames" attributed some or all of the warming to human activities.

The Taylor article is pure unadulterated bull doo doo and intentionally misrepresents the findings of the survey.

In Alberta, we would actually stronger language. I am an Albertan, born, raised, educated, and a life-long resident - with the exception of a year in Houston.

Of course every denier site on the planet referenced it, which show how little they actually think critically. I read a third hand version written a Harvard educated lawyer and all of his brain dead blog followers eat it up. Deniers seem to have really poor crap detectors.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Yes, Scooter, I did.
.

You might want to try reading it again, posting a link to that piece as some kind of "proof" does nothing but dispel any hint that you are approaching the subject in an objective manner.

[RaymondR]

In the US we are used to make a common mistake by mixing up Comunism and Socialism which are totally different.

They are the same thing with slight differences regarding how the wealth is to be exploited and controlled. Communist want the state to both own and control all wealth, socialist are happy to allow the illusion of private ownership as long as they control the wealth.

Generally you can take it that the socialist, and any other leftists, have totalitarian tendencies in that they want to control every aspect of your life. The rights tendency is towards authoritarian rule, they don't particularly care what you do as long as you do not challenge their authority.

It is a matter of the lesser of two evils.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

They are the same thing with slight differences regarding how the wealth is to be exploited and controlled. Communist want the state to both own and control all wealth, socialist are happy to allow the illusion of private ownership as long as they control the wealth.

Generally you can take it that the socialist, and any other leftists, have totalitarian tendencies in that they want to control every aspect of your life. The rights tendency is towards authoritarian rule, they don't particularly care what you do as long as you do not challenge their authority.

It is a matter of the lesser of two evils.

You might wish to read Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Communism is the end state of a process which involves the state whithering away. There is no state in Communism, it is based on communes.

The Communist Manifesto is a fairly quick read.

The phrase was coined by Engels in Part 3, Chapter 2, of Anti-Dühring:

“ The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished,” it withers away.”
Another related quote from Engels comes from Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State:

“ The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong–into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You and James Taylor of the Heartland Institute are flat-out wrong.

Had you actually read the Forbes article AND the comments you would have found:



They are the study authors.

I read the original study as well and found this cavaet



The 64% number is wrong.

From the study - Science or Science Fiction? Professionals



And these folks work mainly in the oil and gas industry.

Bottom line. 24% of the AEGA members who answered the survey believe that global warming is caused by natural causes only. That is from the peer-reviewed journal article.

BTW - I live in Alberta.

Intentionally, or unintentionally you have misstated the study results. Below is Table 4, that summarizes the positions of people with different jobs who have membership in APEGA. The group I care about are the geoscientists, and in this survey the results were:

64.1% described themselves as either believing that GW is overwhelmingly caused by nature (40%), is of unknown origin (group id = economic responsibility) and don't believe the UN IPCC knows what they're talking about (10%), or were described as fatalists who were also skeptical about the IPCC and anyway don't think that GW is much of an issue in any case (14%).

Only 24% of geoscientists as a group thought GW was a problem that a Kyoto style approach could fix, and only 6.5% thought more aggressive regulation like that proposed by the odious Mr. Gore makes any sense.

Your post reflects either an desire to see what you want to see in the data, or as I said, an intentional attempt to mislead. But Table 4 speaks for itself, and if curious, one can read what the classifications used to describe points of view mean in the study itself.

The 64% quoted by Forbes was correct.

Science or Science Fiction? Professionals

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

You might want to try reading it again, posting a link to that piece as some kind of "proof" does nothing but dispel any hint that you are approaching the subject in an objective manner.

I know how averse you are to rational science, but you should read the study yourself and draw your own conclusions. However, if you still want others to do the thinking for you, see the actual results from Table 4 below, which is not my data, but data derived from interviewing people who below to APEGA, which is described as:

"Within the Albertan government, prominent engineers and geoscientists act as Deputy Ministers, Assistant Deputy Ministers, and as Chief of Staff. Further, within the broader field, they also act as advisors to government through think tanks such as the Canada West Foundation, task forces struck to review regulation, and environmental activist organizations such as the Pembina Institute. These professionals and their organizations are regulated by a single professional self-regulatory authority –APEGA – through the setting of education and experience standards for licensure, practice standards, a code of ethics, and a complaint and discipline process for anyone practicing in an unskilled or unethical manner."

Just in case you don't know how to read Table 4, the punchline is as the Forbes summary described - 64% of geoscientists do not ascribe GW to men, do not think we know what impact men are having, or don't buy the UN IPCC findings. Either way, the idea that there is consensus that AGW is a reality is a fraud, although a fraud many eco-warriors buy into.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

If you checked out the survey mentioned in the Forbes article you would have realized that Taylor misquoted it and presented a view diametrically opposed to what the authors discovered.

I read the Forbes article and a couple of other sites that referenced it. I read the survey authors' comments. And I read the original paper.

Only 24% of the surveyed AGEGA members attributed global warming to natural causes only. The rest of the "frames" attributed some or all of the warming to human activities.

The Taylor article is pure unadulterated bull doo doo and intentionally misrepresents the findings of the survey.

In Alberta, we would actually stronger language. I am an Albertan, born, raised, educated, and a life-long resident - with the exception of a year in Houston.

Of course every denier site on the planet referenced it, which show how little they actually think critically. I read a third hand version written a Harvard educated lawyer and all of his brain dead blog followers eat it up. Deniers seem to have really poor crap detectors.

I have no idea what the 'All' category relates to since the total of the different roles from Government employees to geoscientists totals 157%, so I focused on the geoscientists who after all, are the scientists. I would expect government employees to think Kyoto and more regulation to be a splendid idea, which they did in the survey. Table 4 above summarizes professional scientist's point of view, and the 64% figure is correct, however you try to spin it otherwise.

Before you call someone a 'denier' suggesting they deny some truth like the Holocaust which was the original point of reference that fat fool Al Gore had when he spawned the term, you really should learn how to read study results.

[jackdale]

Delfin

I am use the totals from the survey. And that is what I said.

But only 40% of geoscientists ascribe to nature only.

The Fatalist frame and the Economic Responsibility frame cannot be lumped in with the Overwhelming Nature frame when it comes to causes of GW.

‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused

Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused

The definitions are from the study.

Remember the the authors of the study reject Taylor's disinformation.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.

64% are opposed to regulation and do not support Kyoto, but that is not the major claim by Taylor.

The geoscientists are not climate specialists, they are geologists and geophysicists who do oil and gas exploration.