Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is an intentional strategy, based on the same tactics employed by the tobacco lobby, to dispute AGW. Same people, same tactics.

The "muslim extremist" comment is a pathetic attempt at deflection.

There is no colder period. It is warming.

Another pretty graph from skepticalscience.com. If it's only warming, it's not necessarily doing it consistently or 2015 would not have been only the 3rd-warmest year that the satellites have measured since 1979. Instead, it would have been the warmest year, hence the title of the book remains "climate change" to accommodate such inconsistencies. With the contents of the book remaining the same, however, then why would the Obama administration not change the title to "global warming?" Out of deference to Frank Lutz or George Bush? Don't think so. Not unlike the labels they carefully use to describe terrorist acts committed by Muslim extremists, do you think it's just happenstance that they stuck with the term "climate change?" Just an analogy used for illustration; no deflection intended nor needed.

You attributed the term CC to a supposedly misleading Republican memo first written in the late 1990's and announced to the public in 2002. If the term has caused so much public confusion & polarization as you allege, then please explain why it remains in common usage now.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

For a Great laugh....did you see the link posted to Liberal.ca.....I about laughed myself off the chair....

But that's what liberals do.
Mandate others to make themselves feel better.
Gun laws
Eco-Imperialist Laws
You name it...

$2,000,000,000 (that's billion) for a "Low Carbon Economy Trust" that will provide funding to "projects that materially reduce carbon emissions." That'll make those solar panels cost the taxpayers less! Oh well, that's who they elected and it's all the liberalism they can (hopefully) afford.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/climate-change/

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is an intentional strategy, based on the same tactics employed by the tobacco lobby, to dispute AGW. Same people, same tactics.

The "muslim extremist" comment is a pathetic attempt at deflection.

There is no colder period. It is warming.

Based on that graph, we can solve the problem by putting lead back into fuel and banning catalytic converters. Or did ocean currents or something cause the mid century dip? I can't remember what the explanation is for that one.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Christy, Happer and Curry are far from ostracized. They are among James Inhofe's and Lamar Smith's anointed.

AND . . . what's your point? That these three scientists' views on CC happen to be aligned with 50% of the American public who are represented by Senators like Inhofe & Smith? I thought this sort of nefarious conduct was generally called democracy & free speech?

Christy and Curry, along with Richard Lindzen, were part of the American Physical Society's workshop when the APS reviewed its climate change policy.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements...eview-bios.pdf

OK-Doke.

BTW - Curry does not reject AGW.

You are right and I stand corrected. Here's a brief Wiki synopsis on her position, one which sounds pretty similar to the non-expert/expert Freeman Dyson, btw.

"While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change, she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change. Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review."

Among other differences, Curry believes the temperature projections are grossly exaggerated, and that natural forces play a larger role in sea ice variations. In other words, she's in, but not ALL in, so she is therefore ostracized by the consensus community.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe because it's coming out of the Univ. of Alabama. That's the heretic Dr. Cristy as I recall. Cristy, Happer, Curry -- all seriously credentialed but ostracized solely for rejecting AGW.

And UAH and its satellite data is under the purview of Roy Spencer, who is "only a meteorologist."

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Freeman Dyson speaks on his own expertise on climate change.

Yep. And this is the money part of that quote...

I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd.

...which voices what many of us feel, and which makes many of us who are not experts skeptics...

...and since so many claims are absurd and that doesn't seem to disturb the AGW zealots among us, that makes us question the science as well as their motives.

And then, when the zealots accuse the skeptics of being malicious (attempting to get the Federal government to prosecute them under the RICO Act), or accuse them of selling their expertise to the oil lobby (Happer), and continually belittle them and attack their professional qualifications, skeptics become even more skeptical of motives...because that ain't science - it's witch hunting.

And to me, it's also telling that a AGW scientist who has sued a noted pundit for slander because he said he research conclusions were fraudulent about FOUR YEARS AGO, a pundit who has said "okay, let's go to trial and air this out in public" and, following discovery, supplied everything required to the claimant's lawyers, still has not received one item from the claimant as a result of that discovery order even though it is OVER A YEAR OLD...and the court (which was "shopped" to the DC district), is foot dragging on the case. It's also telling that not one person or agency has stood by the AGW scientist in his suit, and a massive number of persons and agencies have filed amicus curiae ( I think that's the right term) briefs in support of the defendant. What's up with that?

So, yeah...he's not an expert...but perhaps neither are many or most who claim to be because the climate system is too complex for our current understanding and methods.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

You attributed the term CC to a supposedly misleading Republican memo first written in the late 1990's and announced to the public in 2002. If the term has caused so much public confusion & polarization as you allege, then please explain why it remains in common usage now.

I attributed the politicization of the term "climate change" to Frank Luntz.

I also posted this previously.

Quote:
In 1975, geochemist Wallace Broecker introduced the term “climate change” in an article published by Science. In 1979, a National Academy of Sciences report used the term “global warming” to define increases in the Earth’s average surface temperature, while “climate change” more broadly referred to the numerous effects of this increase, such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification.

Global warming looks at temperature, which is one component of climate change.

As I learned in freshman geography, climate is the long term study of temperature, precipitation, winds, and seasonal variations. Climate change looks at the ramifications of those changes on the rest of the ecosystem.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Consensus anyone.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/12086226/Red-wine-is-bad-for-you-say-experts.html

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Who's a skeptic about your solar? I never said you didn't do everything you said you did, at the prices you did. I merely raised the possibility that, being installed on a business and/or a rental property, you have been able to write at least part of your outlay off?

Don't answer; it's not relevant and none of my beezwax. This is why the 'show me your panels' game is pointless. If I showed you an install with twice as many panels, would you yield to my obvious eco-superiority? No, and I wouldn't expect you to. Forgive me if I don't bow before yours.

You finally get that it's not relevant and none of any of our "beezwax" how he paid for it or how he fills out his tax forms, and yet this is the second time you're brought it to our attention. I think the first time you suggested that he was being "coy" (nice word for liar?) about it before he posted actual pictorial proof. I don't think he's claiming any "eco-superiority," just telling us (and showing us) how he gets his energy. Talk (and internet posts) is cheap, but actually implementing what you claim to be in favor of has cost him $78K! If you really believed all the things you've said on here, I would think that you WOULD be pretty blown away and even "bowing down before his obvious eco-superiority" because if you and I and everyone else in the US did what he has done, the use of fossil fuels would be cut enormously, which is your goal, right? He's a living example, your poster boy for what you advocate, but because your politics differ it seems to be more important to you to prove you're "right" than to express honest admiration for someone who is actually living what you profess to be in favor of.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

... so many claims are absurd and that doesn't seem to disturb the AGW zealots among us, that makes us question the science as well as their motives.

So, yeah...[Dyson's] not an expert...but perhaps neither are many or most who claim to be because the climate system is too complex for our current understanding and methods.

You want us to believe that you, and every other skeptic, including Prof Dyson, know better about the complexities and uncertainties of climate science than the [very big percentage] of subject matter experts. And that skeptics are better judges of scientific validity than the [even bigger percentage] of scientific bodies who have examined these findings and found them valid?

I'm sorry, to me that's absurd. But I'm no expert either.

Regardless of who's right, the only way forward is to keep studying.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

You finally get that it's not relevant and none of any of our "beezwax" how he paid for it or how he fills out his tax forms, and yet this is the second time you're brought it to our attention. I think the first time you suggested that he was being "coy" (nice word for liar?) about it before he posted actual pictorial proof. I don't think he's claiming any "eco-superiority," just telling us (and showing us) how he gets his energy. Talk (and internet posts) is cheap, but actually implementing what you claim to be in favor of has cost him $78K! If you really believed all the things you've said on here, I would think that you WOULD be pretty blown away and even "bowing down before his obvious eco-superiority" because if you and I and everyone else in the US did what he has done, the use of fossil fuels would be cut enormously, which is your goal, right? He's a living example, your poster boy for what you advocate, but because your politics differ it seems to be more important to you to prove you're "right" than to express honest admiration for someone who is actually living what you profess to be in favor of.

I never, for one instant, doubted that he installed exactly what he said he did, or that he has told us truths about costs. Nor have I dissed him for installing it. Only the crowing about it, as if it lends his science arguments weight and negates mine. Shall we all show pix of our home, boat, copies of our donation receipts, our cars, utility bills, our voting history...

Irrelevant to this discussion, like his bringing it up in the first place. Pissing contests aren't useful.

Let it go. The mods have already removed one set of exchanges about it.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm sorry, to me that's absurd. But I'm no expert either.

Regardless of who's right, the only way forward is to keep studying.

This is exactly how I feel about this whole subject and I wish that our pols would take this approach. This whole subject is extremely complex and needs MUCH more study before we really understand it and as you say, the only way forward is to keep studying it and eventually maybe we'll actually understand what "it" really is and what, if anything, needs to be done about "it." But instead, many in the political world seem to want to adopt a "ready, fire, aim" approach to AGW. In my experience, no matter what the subject, that approach never ends well.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You want us to believe that you, and every other skeptic, including Prof Dyson, know better about the complexities and uncertainties of climate science than the [very big percentage] of subject matter experts. And that skeptics are better judges of scientific validity than the [even bigger percentage] of scientific bodies who have examined these findings and found them valid?

That's not what I said, L-E, nor is it what Dyson said.

Never made a claim that I know the uncertainties and complexities better, but that some claims about future climate conditions being made by AGW proponents, and some of the policies that are being proposed by them despite the uncertainties and complexities, are absurd...and that provides germ to skepticism.

Your ultimate sentence above reinforces my point. Some of the claims being made are valid (logical, but not necessarily "true", which is another definition of valid) but many are absurd, and have been logically proven to be absurd. But many AGW proponents, even the scientists, continue to defend both the logical and the absurd claims.

And that leads to increased skepticism.

Whether you believe that or not isn't the point, is it? You're a proponent. The point is, "do skeptics believe that?" I'm a skeptic. I believe it, and I think others do, but they can speak for themselves, as you may have noted on this thread.

[GordMay]

So, what am I missing here?

Global Warming:
a) isn't happening
And even if it is happening:
b) isn't caused by humans
c) it is just cyclical (natural variation)
d) isn't significant
e) isn’t harmful (probably beneficial)
f) there’s nothing we can (will) do about it
g) even if we could mitigate cw, it would be too expensive & destructive

[Capt Phil]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Yep. And this is the money part of that quote...



...which voices what many of us feel, and which makes many of us who are not experts skeptics...

...and since so many claims are absurd and that doesn't seem to disturb the AGW zealots among us, that makes us question the science as well as their motives.

And then, when the zealots accuse the skeptics of being malicious (attempting to get the Federal government to prosecute them under the RICO Act), or accuse them of selling their expertise to the oil lobby (Happer), and continually belittle them and attack their professional qualifications, skeptics become even more skeptical of motives...because that ain't science - it's witch hunting.

And to me, it's also telling that a AGW scientist who has sued a noted pundit for slander because he said he research conclusions were fraudulent about FOUR YEARS AGO, a pundit who has said "okay, let's go to trial and air this out in public" and, following discovery, supplied everything required to the claimant's lawyers, still has not received one item from the claimant as a result of that discovery order even though it is OVER A YEAR OLD...and the court (which was "shopped" to the DC district), is foot dragging on the case. It's also telling that not one person or agency has stood by the AGW scientist in his suit, and a massive number of persons and agencies have filed amicus curiae ( I think that's the right term) briefs in support of the defendant. What's up with that?

So, yeah...he's not an expert...but perhaps neither are many or most who claim to be because the climate system is too complex for our current understanding and methods.

I thought Dyson invented a cool vacuum cleaner! Phil