The New Climate Game

[waldo]

If the right-wing pundits and bloggers were to suddenly have a change of heart and get on board...there would be wide acceptance among the current naysayers.

And no, I'm not kidding, much less exaggerating.

this pretty much nails it. Obviously, joe-citizen doesn't really invest any serious time into "the debate" - hence mainstream lazy journalism abounds where syndicated stories are simply passed on, verbatim. Sprinkle into that mix the smattering of dishonest journalists/newspapers and industry/think-tank spinners pushing out their crapola, ably assisted by denier bloggers, the makeup of which constitutes the likes of TV weatherman, hobbyists, charlatans, etc. All in all, the lazy dishonest mix ends up producing a veritable gold-mine of dubious material to fuel joe-citizens short attention span.

[Shady]

I'm still waiting for the AGW true-believers to explain the causes of the medieval warm period.

No takers?

[Michael Hardner]

No takers?

It's not on us to delve into the science, is it ?

[Shady]

It's not on us to delve into the science, is it ?

True. But I'm sure some of the smart climate posters such as waldo must have some relevant information.

[waldo]

I'm still waiting for the AGW true-believers to explain the causes of the medieval warm period. Cue jeopardy theme.....now!

should we put up a post to refresh your recall on the outstanding MWP questions you refuse to answer... by the way, you left us hanging... advising you were fact gathering - building a wealth of information to respond with. How many more weeks (nay months) will you keep us in suspense!

No takers?

standard pathetic Shady intellectual dishonesty on display... here's that post detailing the questions you refuse to answer. Note the timestamp "15 March 2010 - 11:40 AM"... where you worm & squirm... as you stated, "I definitely will. However, that will take some time to process". We're closing in on a month, Shady... how much longer will you require? (note: in this series of Shady unanswered questions, this is gentle reminder #5)

And regarding timestamps, in my universe,

March 15 2010 - 9:47 AM

is earlier than

March 15 2010 - 10:40 AM

. So again, I first asked you specific questions about the MWP. Please answer them. The reasons for the MWP. The contributions of those reasons might be having today, and why the MWP, according to Dr. Jones, may have actually been warmer.

in your best anal parsing, you fail to acknowledge you're not asking questions. You're making statements and asking for confirmation of those statements.

-

you stated

: And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer!

-

you asked:

can you tell us why?

-

you stated

: And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today

-

you asked:

Right?

-

you stated

: Even though it's statistically insignificant warming.

-

you stated

: And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

so... in your world... you're asking 2 questions: (1) Can you tell us why? & (2) Right?... both of which, as I stated, are simply asking for confirmation of your preceding statements. Shady, back-peddler extraordinaire. C'mon, Shady... you said you've been accumulating, as you said, "a vault of information".

Here's gentle reminder #4 for you:

And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer! Can you tell us why? Surely you must know. Surely your AGW heros should know as well. And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today. Right? Even though it's statistically insignificant warming. And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

- care to substantiate your claims that the MWP temperatures were warmer than today?

- care to substantiate your claims (your inference) that the MWP temperatures were not a regional phenomenon - that the MWP was global in nature?

- care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?

- care to state why you continue to hold fast to your intellectually dishonest claims that today`s warming is statistically insignificant... why you continue to act like an icehole concerning a single statement from a single scientist relative to only one of the assortment of surface temperature records available, notwithstanding corroborations from radiosondes, satellite, etc.

- care to substantiate your premise that the MWP period, regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP, presents statistically significant warming?

I definitely will. However, that will take some time to process.

[Pliny]

you didn't answer the questions:

I see.

Well, proof to me would be an honest concern for humanity - not a condemnation of him and the entire civilzation. It would also include plans on how we could take advantage of global warming not just that we must stop as much activity as possible, regress to living off the land, become vegetarians, declare all virgin territory off limits to mankind or any development, etc. - Basically disappear from the face of the earth.

If you had any original thought that might help, too. But your prime objective seems to be destroying deniers and once they are gone, you can go onto objective two getting rid of useless eaters. Hopefully objective one won't be realized and this whole silly political game will be lost to posterity.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Pliny

[waldo]

I see.

Well, proof to me would be an honest concern for humanity - not a condemnation of him and the entire civilzation. It would also include plans on how we could take advantage of global warming not just that we must stop as much activity as possible, regress to living off the land, become vegetarians, declare all virgin territory off limits to mankind or any development, etc. - Basically disappear from the face of the earth.

... a repost of the related "proof" response per this other MLW post: No... your response, quoted above, did not answer the questions, in any shape or form. You are simply another of the long line of sheep-like deniers who, when challenged, can't even articulate what level of scientific founded "proof" they seek, they require. Denial, for the sake of denial.

I did answer those questions actually. Finally got around to it. Not the hottest topic these days, you know.

No... your response did not answer the questions, in any shape or form. You are simply another of the long line of sheep-like deniers who, when challenged, can't even articulate what level of scientific founded "proof" they seek, they require. Denial, for the sake of denial.

don't go all out there on a limb, hey Pliny? Since you're the ever present naysayer with nothing ever offered to support your naysaying, let's have you step up and answer the following... let's determine exactly where it breaks down for you - hey?

Q1 - is it warming... or is it not? You speak to a temperature rise while at the same time questioning whether, "global warming may be true". Which is it? Is it warming... or is it not?

Q2 - has the level of atmospheric CO2 risen... or has it not?

Q3 - has the level of rising atmospheric CO2 been attributed as a natural event... or has it been attributed to mankind?

Q4 - since we always seem to need a refresh on the "point of proof" within science: Science does not deal in "proof"... based upon a balance of evidence, science deals in formulated theories to explain the evidence. Scientific research/experimentation is relied upon to confirm, to adjust or to challenge/modify theories as new scientific understanding is realized. The theory of AGW climate change is based on laws of physics and is supported by reams of empirical observation/data and highly complex models... we don't have the luxury of an isolated "test-tube" Earth to experiment upon.

With all that being said Pliny, accepting to your "proof premise", exactly what is it that would constitute "proof" for you? What observations, what evidence would you consider as "proof" that AGW climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels?

Well, proof to me would be an honest concern for humanity - not a condemnation of him and the entire civilzation. It would also include plans on how we could take advantage of global warming not just that we must stop as much activity as possible, regress to living off the land, become vegetarians, declare all virgin territory off limits to mankind or any development, etc. - Basically disappear from the face of the earth.

[Michael Hardner]

I resent the demagogic fear-mongering that surrounds Climate Change. There is too much evidence that the science is politically tainted. Politicians have too much of a proclivity to fear-monger for their own aggrandizement or to push the agenda of their political masters.

Of course this is true. This is also true of national security, and anything else where there is a general concern that a politician can capitalize on to gain attention.

But don't blame the science.

The scientists generally resent being pawns of politics, even though they may feel that political action is required. And there are examples of climate scientists rebuking politicians and activists for overstating the case of Global Warming, overstating the implications or the possible future ramifications.

[eyeball]

I resent the demagogic fear-mongering that surrounds Climate Change. There is too much evidence that the science is politically tainted. Politicians have too much of a proclivity to fear-monger for their own aggrandizement or to push the agenda of their political masters.

What about the demagogic fear-mongering that surrounds doing anything about curbing emissions?

We're doomed no matter who we listen to in this silly debate.

[Bonam]

We're doomed no matter who we listen to in this silly debate.

Not true at all. Filter out the demagogues and extremists in the debate and listen to intelligent and reasonable individuals. And then at that point still evaluate what you hear using your own knowledge.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Bonam

[Keepitsimple]

What about the demagogic fear-mongering that surrounds doing anything about curbing emissions?

We're doomed no matter who we listen to in this silly debate.

I could be called a skeptic because I am not convinced that humans are a significant driver of Climate Change......but I still believe strongly that we should reduce emmissions from car exhausts, coal factories and try to clean up other sources - not necessarily to reduce C02 - but to get rid of as much pollution as possible. I believe in clean water and all we can do to facilitate that. I believe in conservation and sustainability in timber management. I do my part and believe in recycling and waste management. I turn off the lights and turn down the thermostat. In short, like many other skeptics, I'm an eco-friendly citizen but I'm not religiously devoted to reducing CO2.

[Wild Bill]

I could be called a skeptic because I am not convinced that humans are a significant driver of Climate Change......but I still believe strongly that we should reduce emmissions from car exhausts, coal factories and try to clean up other sources - not necessarily to reduce C02 - but to get rid of as much pollution as possible. I believe in clean water and all we can do to facilitate that. I believe in conservation and sustainability in timber management. I do my part and believe in recycling and waste management. I turn off the lights and turn down the thermostat. In short, like many other skeptics, I'm an eco-friendly citizen but I'm not religiously devoted to reducing CO2.

Exactly! Yet have you noticed how over the past few years the "Greens" have totally stopped talking about cleaning up any such things? All they talk about is CO2 and political wealth re-distribution schemes like Kyoto and Copenhagen. We have carbon trading credits but nothing about reducing car emissions or cleaning up water.

Nobody cares about cleaning up the environment anymore. They just want bleed the west in favour of the third world.

[Pliny]

I could be called a skeptic because I am not convinced that humans are a significant driver of Climate Change......but I still believe strongly that we should reduce emmissions from car exhausts, coal factories and try to clean up other sources - not necessarily to reduce C02 - but to get rid of as much pollution as possible. I believe in clean water and all we can do to facilitate that. I believe in conservation and sustainability in timber management. I do my part and believe in recycling and waste management. I turn off the lights and turn down the thermostat. In short, like many other skeptics, I'm an eco-friendly citizen but I'm not religiously devoted to reducing CO2.

That's keeping it simple!

[Pliny]

What about the demagogic fear-mongering that surrounds doing anything about curbing emissions?

We're doomed no matter who we listen to in this silly debate.

Really! Does my point of view make you afraid? Firstly, I am not appealing to emotion as demagogues do. Nor am I suggesting we do nothing but there are things we need to understand and either take advantage of or prepare for. I am not predicting the sky will fall if we do not rush into the fox's den.

[Pliny]

Of course this is true. This is also true of national security, and anything else where there is a general concern that a politician can capitalize on to gain attention.

Then let's recognize it for what it is.

But don't blame the science.

Is science suggesting massive transfers of wealth, payment to third world countries for the cost of our high standard of living to the environment. Are they suggesting we become vegetarians? Are they suggesting we euthanize the elderly. Are they insistent we sterilize the feeble-minded? Are they writing the policy and law that engineers our daily lives?

If they are then I will blame the science because they are now political activists and have gone beyond being advisers to policy makers.

The scientists generally resent being pawns of politics, even though they may feel that political action is required. And there are examples of climate scientists rebuking politicians and activists for overstating the case of Global Warming, overstating the implications or the possible future ramifications.

I have not heard enough of them doing so. You are preaching to the choir on this one. It is a good message for Waldo but he isn't promoting the science as much as he is advocating for political intervention. He pretends to be arguing the science but won't differentiate or distance himself from the politicians - he should, for instance, get rid of that picture of Al Gore on his profile. I haven't checked it lately, maybe he has.

[Michael Hardner]

Then let's recognize it for what it is.

Absolutely. What it is, is people making an all-out attempt to change policy through persuasion. You see it as a power-grab, but I don't. I think it's more likely that the earnest and altrustic greens are exactly as well-intentioned as they appear.

Is science suggesting massive transfers of wealth, payment to third world countries for the cost of our high standard of living to the environment. Are they suggesting we become vegetarians? Are they suggesting we euthanize the elderly. Are they insistent we sterilize the feeble-minded? Are they writing the policy and law that engineers our daily lives?

If they are then I will blame the science because they are now political activists and have gone beyond being advisers to policy makers.

Yeah, I don't think they're saying those things.

I have not heard enough of them doing so. You are preaching to the choir on this one. It is a good message for Waldo but he isn't promoting the science as much as he is advocating for political intervention. He pretends to be arguing the science but won't differentiate or distance himself from the politicians - he should, for instance, get rid of that picture of Al Gore on his profile. I haven't checked it lately, maybe he has.

Right. Waldo and Gore believe that it's more important to convince people that there is a problem than to educate them about the problem.

[Pliny]

Absolutely. What it is, is people making an all-out attempt to change policy through persuasion. You see it as a power-grab, but I don't. I think it's more likely that the earnest and altrustic greens are exactly as well-intentioned as they appear.

The greens would have no force at all if it were not born out of earnesty. It is the few that want the power and the many that will garner it for them.

Right. Waldo and Gore believe that it's more important to convince people that there is a problem than to educate them about the problem.

Precisely. They can't keep it simple and so ignore opposition and force the issue with no understanding that people, with any self -determinism, will prefer going to hell before they are forced against their will - right or wrong.

If the position cannot be explained on it's own merits and must be obfuscated by belittling and demeaning opposition I would say there is some question as to the truth of the matter. We donot have to understand the science behind the findings in order to understand there is a situation. It behooves us to least understand the politics behind it.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Pliny

[wyly]

Exactly! Yet have you noticed how over the past few years the "Greens" have totally stopped talking about cleaning up any such things? All they talk about is CO2 and political wealth re-distribution schemes like Kyoto and Copenhagen. We have carbon trading credits but nothing about reducing car emissions or cleaning up water.

Nobody cares about cleaning up the environment anymore. They just want bleed the west in favour of the third world.

priorities...it's like going to the doctor to ask him to fix your acne but ignoring the knife sticking out of your back...clean water won't matter if the planet suffers an enviromental collapse...and the minor issues in comparison are being looked at they just don't get the headlines and air time that a knife in your back would... Edited April 14, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

Right. Waldo and Gore believe that it's more important to convince people that there is a problem than to educate them about the problem.

it's been education all along but if people refuse to be objective and learn preferring to make a political issue out of it whose fault is that?...

[Pliny]

it's been education all along but if people refuse to be objective and learn preferring to make a political issue out of it whose fault is that?...

I guess making a political issue out of it is the only way you'll gain any attention.

You don't seem too eager to get the political issue out of it.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Pliny

[eyeball]

Really! Does my point of view make you afraid? Firstly, I am not appealing to emotion as demagogues do. Nor am I suggesting we do nothing but there are things we need to understand and either take advantage of or prepare for. I am not predicting the sky will fall if we do not rush into the fox's den.

I resent the demagogic fear-mongering that surrounds Climate Change. There is too much evidence that the science is politically tainted. Politicians have too much of a proclivity to fear-monger for their own aggrandizement or to push the agenda of their political masters.

You resent the demagoguery that surrounds CC. Surrounds sounds like a lot especially when it's encompassing as issue as allegedly big as this one is.

Perhaps my comment was also a little off the cuff but I certainly recall hearing the words devastate and destroy a fair bit when hearing descriptions of the affect acting might have on our economy.

In any case what I really resent are the apparent ratios of skepticism vs consensus in the science used in AGW theory and some of the theories our economic policies rest on. As near as I can tell there is still something on the order of 90 - 95% consensus amongst experts that AGW is real as is the need for immediate global scale action. Does the economic science underlying policies like globalization, fiat currencies or laissez-faire capitalism have the same high level of consensus that AGW does? I highly doubt it, yet society basically acts as if they were the gospel truth. We've even gone so far as fighting wars to stamp out other economic models that we fear or hate. Demagoguery has certainly loomed large throughout recent history as far as the economy is concerned.

My real fear is that the debate around climate change has badly compromised societies faith in science which is probably the most important institution we have, if it can be called such a thing. I doubt if we could collectively think our way out of a paper bag if our lives depended on it no matter what the threat.

[Pliny]

You resent the demagoguery that surrounds CC. Surrounds sounds like a lot especially when it's encompassing as issue as allegedly big as this one is.

Perhaps my comment was also a little off the cuff but I certainly recall hearing the words devastate and destroy a fair bit when hearing descriptions of the affect acting might have on our economy.

Not just "acting" - acting politically.

In any case what I really resent are the apparent ratios of skepticism vs consensus in the science used in AGW theory and some of the theories our economic policies rest on. As near as I can tell there is still something on the order of 90 - 95% consensus amongst experts that AGW is real as is the need for immediate global scale action. Does the economic science underlying policies like globalization, fiat currencies or laissez-faire capitalism have the same high level of consensus that AGW does? I highly doubt it, yet society basically acts as if they were the gospel truth. We've even gone so far as fighting wars to stamp out other economic models that we fear or hate. Demagoguery has certainly loomed large throughout recent history as far as the economy is concerned.

As much as Economists would like to believe it Economics is not a science in the same respect as the physical sciences. There is no action in economics that will create the exact same reaction every time on a mathematical level.

What war has been waged specifically to stamp out an economic model? I can only think of political models where a central authority controls the economy and that is as close as I can think of stamping out an economic model.

I agree that demagoguery looms large in the economic arena. It is prime because politically governments want and need control of the economy to direct and engineer society as they deem it should be engineered. Their entire activity is about taxing and spending.

My real fear is that the debate around climate change has badly compromised societies faith in science which is probably the most important institution we have, if it can be called such a thing. I doubt if we could collectively think our way out of a paper bag if our lives depended on it no matter what the threat.

Society has the same faith in science as they have always had. They are quite leery of it and when it makes proclamations of doom and dire circumstance they are right to be leery. Experts and authority have been proven too many times to be promoting their own self-interests by befuddling the public.

And you are another that has no faith in the public. That's another thing that makes me leery. Anyone with a poor opinion of the public calling them idiotic and ignorant certainly isn't interested in educating them. It seems they are more interested in their own selfish-interests. Who else but the criminal calls their victims stupid? And when it is generalized as the stupid public there are some serious questions to ask of that person.

[eyeball]

And you are another that has no faith in the public. That's another thing that makes me leery. Anyone with a poor opinion of the public calling them idiotic and ignorant certainly isn't interested in educating them. It seems they are more interested in their own selfish-interests. Who else but the criminal calls their victims stupid? And when it is generalized as the stupid public there are some serious questions to ask of that person.

You sure read a lot more into what I said than I ever imagined.

I'm a criminal?

I concede the climate change debate. You win. I've actually pretty much given up worrying about it.

Edited April 15, 2010 by eyeball

[Bonam]

In any case what I really resent are the apparent ratios of skepticism vs consensus in the science used in AGW theory and some of the theories our economic policies rest on. As near as I can tell there is still something on the order of 90 - 95% consensus amongst experts that AGW is real

I'm sure the percentage is higher than that.

as is the need for immediate global scale action.

The need for action is a whole different story. For one, scientists are not necessarily the most qualified to determine what action a society needs to take. Secondly, it is reasonable to assume that any action that can be taken now will be substantially less effective than action taken in the future, because in the future we will have access to both more advanced technology and a larger economy. This may sound like little more than glorifying procrastination, but it just happens to be true. Now, I am not arguing against action, I think action like adopting nuclear energy, reducing our needs for combusting hydrocarbons for transportation, etc, are all worthy endeavors, but this point needed to be made.

My real fear is that the debate around climate change has badly compromised societies faith in science

Sorry but "faith in science" is an oxymoron. The whole point of science is that it can be understood through REASON not through faith. An individual need never take any scientific finding on faith, they can evaluate it for themselves. Any person who tells you "believe the science", "do as science tells you", or anything along those lines, is a zealot and a mystic, not a scientist. The only difference between him and a missionary trying to convert you is their religion.

which is probably the most important institution we have, if it can be called such a thing

I would argue that it cannot. Science is a way of thinking, not an institution. One can be a scientist in the absence of any institutional entity.

I doubt if we could collectively think our way out of a paper bag if our lives depended on it no matter what the threat.

You could be right, because collectives tend to be stupid. Mob mentality and all that. Most individuals, however, would have no trouble with the paper bag. Leave people to act in their own interest rather than forcing the collective will upon them and you'll most times end up with a better result than you could otherwise.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

I agree that demagoguery looms large in the economic arena. It is prime because politically governments want and need control of the economy to direct and engineer society as they deem it should be engineered. Their entire activity is about taxing and spending.

This represents only part of what they do. In my experience, almost nobody who wants control also rejects the idea that they are responsible for the areas that they control. In other words, saying the government wants to control, tax and spend ignores the aspect of paternalism that comes with those functions - for good or bad.

Government wants to be our parent, not a parasite. Your understanding of that will help you promote alternatives to that model.

Society has the same faith in science as they have always had. They are quite leery of it and when it makes proclamations of doom and dire circumstance they are right to be leery. Experts and authority have been proven too many times to be promoting their own self-interests by befuddling the public.

This is not true at all, IMO. In the 20th century, science was seen as responsible for the arrival of many gadgets and comforts that made life easier. Also, there were wonders that boggled the mind, that priests and wizards of the past couldn't ever have delivered.

So you have the ascendancy of science and the 'expert' happening at that time. With that, a lot of pseudo-science like Economics and Psychology gaining believe. The newspapers began quoting experts and in the post-war centralized authority coupled with expertise (the 'government man', the mathematician, the corporation, the engineer etc.) provided specialized expertise that were going to usher us into the next utopia.

And you are another that has no faith in the public. That's another thing that makes me leery. Anyone with a poor opinion of the public calling them idiotic and ignorant certainly isn't interested in educating them. It seems they are more interested in their own selfish-interests. Who else but the criminal calls their victims stupid? And when it is generalized as the stupid public there are some serious questions to ask of that person.

We count on the public to act in their own interest. There is a paradox there, though. The public can't be expected to digest issues that are beyond a certain complexity. But then again, neither can a board of directors. So somebody has to decide when to educate, when to summarize, and when to gloss over things.

Identifying public opinion leaders and engaging them is the key, IMO. I can see opportunities to do this with 'the web' but there hasn't been a great breakthrough yet. Almost, but not yet.