Global Warming Video

[lukin]

Funny.

[The_Squid]

idiotic

[Michael Hardner]

In the first 18 seconds, the lady in the video articulates Saipan's point of view exactly...

[TimG]

idiotic

I thought it was brilliant. Sums up in the intellectual bankruptcy of the typical alarmist argument quite nicely. Edited January 12, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It's called a strawman argument. Basically you make up an idiot who disagrees with you, then you argue with the idiot. It doesn't prove you're right, though.

I would say that the frequency with which the 'global conspiracy' defense is used by those who deny GW must mean something...

[TimG]

It's called a strawman argument. Basically you make up an idiot who disagrees with you, then you argue with the idiot. It doesn't prove you're right, though.

Sure. Satrirists over the ages have used the literatry device often. This video was done well.

I would say that the frequency with which the 'global conspiracy' defense is used by those who deny GW must mean something

When it comes to conspiracies the alarmists lead the way with their endless rants about 'big oil'. Oh right - 'big oil' is not a conspiracy theory - because you think it is true. Maybe you should look in a mirror.

Bottom line is people look after their self interest and it is rediulous to deny that a lot of people with a lot of money have a financial interest in keeping the AGW scare going. You can argue that they will not be effective in the long run if the facts do not support them and I would agree. But you can bet they will be doing their best to manipulate the facts as much as they can in the meantime.

Edited January 12, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

hee haw! lukin... following your unibrow lead... funni er

[waldo]

typical alarmist

care to qualify and reaffirm your label assignment with the following MLW consensus accepted, 'climate change advocacy label' grouping? (correct me if I'm wrong... I seem to recall you advocating for a climate sensitivity level < 1° C, hey?)

given the recent flurry of MLW posts with an emphasis on 'climate change advocacy labels', the following is receiving emphatic interest! It's particularly biting to a certain segment of so-called "skeptics" since they lose the emphasis of their favoured "alarmist" dig while, equally, having to back-peddle and accept a degree of warming. Effectively, the definitions align with the real significant area of contention; i.e.; climate sensitivity - that is to say, the climate systems measure of temperature response to a change in the radiative forcing... usually expressed as the temperature change associated with a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2.

- labels with respect to degrees of acceptance to climate sensitivity levels:

idiotati

:

<= 1° C

lukewarmer

:

> 1° C and <= 3° C

warmist

:

> 3° C and <= 6° C

alarmist

:

>= 6° C

[TimG]

care to qualify and reaffirm your label assignment with the following MLW consensus accepted, 'climate change advocacy label' grouping? (correct me if I'm wrong... I seem to recall you advocating for a climate sensitivity level < 1° C, hey?)

Alarmists are defined by what they say about the consequences of the warming - not the amount of warming. My position is CO2 senstivity is irrelevent since we have no ability to meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions on a global scale. If CO2 is problem we need to adapt. The flood devestation in Austrialia and snowfalls in UK are perfect examples of how a government obession with AGW has led to a failure to prepare for known risks from weather.

[Michael Hardner]

When it comes to conspiracies the alarmists lead the way with their endless rants about 'big oil'. Oh right - 'big oil' is not a conspiracy theory - because you think it is true. Maybe you should look in a mirror.

Now YOU'RE doing the strawman thing. Tell me - what else do I think is true ? After telling me what I think, please proceed to debate it.

Bottom line is people look after their self interest and it is rediulous to deny that a lot of people with a lot of money have a financial interest in keeping the AGW scare going. You can argue that they will not be effective in the long run if the facts do not support them and I would agree. But you can bet they will be doing their best to manipulate the facts as much as they can in the meantime.

So do YOU lie - absolutely LIE - day in and day out for money ? No ? Hmmm....

People are almost almost always neither pure good, nor pure evil. As such, they would not be expected to perpetuate a continuous lie to "make money". Nor are they saving the planet - they are pursuing their work. The system, also, is built to prevent pure evil and lies from propagating: it is an open system.

[Michael Hardner]

The flood devestation in Austrialia and snowfalls in UK are perfect examples of how a government obession with AGW has led to a failure to prepare for known risks from weather.

Please validate that one, real world style. Your assertion that obsession with AGW caused them to drop their other duties seems ridiculous to me.

[waldo]

Alarmists are defined by what they say about the consequences of the warming - not the amount of warming. My position is CO2 senstivity is irrelevent since we have no ability to meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions on a global scale. If CO2 is problem we need to adapt. The flood devestation in Austrialia and snowfalls in UK are perfect examples of how a government obession with AGW has led to a failure to prepare for known risks from weather.

the AGW denier label is quite matter-of-fact; certainly, no interpretation is needed. Alternatively, I don't see you offering qualification to your use of a broad-brushed "alarmist" tag, particularly when you align it with your completely subjective assignment tallied against verbiage (and after all your anti-subjective tirades... oh my!). Of course, today must be a particularly inspiring day for you to trot out, several times now, the baseless CAGW acronym - don't hesitate to qualify that one also - hey?

while you're at it you might step up and actually offer something other than standard TimG rhetoric... what (Australian) government obsessions with AGW are you correlating with the level of preparation/response to the devastating floods in Queensland? I'm quite surprised you've not trotted out your standard invocation that this extreme weather event has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.

in any case, it's quite revealing to see you, now, speak to the "irrelevance" of CO2 sensitivity, given how much you've (incorrectly) beaked off about it in the MLW past - I'm particularly fond of this following exchange that pretty much tagged your knowledge level on sensitivity... but don't let that ever get in the way of your continued blathering nonsense, hey?

interesting… you started out belittling IPCC likelihood (probability) assignments by labeling them as “guesses”. In terms of ‘expert views’, one of the IPCC guideline associations available to assist in assigning a likelihood (probability), you maintained your position by stating, as you said, “Guesses by experts are still guesses”. You then shifted slightly by speaking to bias and subjectivity. In your assessment, you’re not willing to accept the expert view likelihood (probability) assignment as an informed knowledge/choice (biased, or not)… you simply choose to denigrate it all as “guess work”!

in terms of ‘quantitative analysis’, the other of the IPCC guideline associations available to assist in assigning a likelihood (probability), you make a blanket statement that categorizes all quantitative analysis as, “extremely subjective”… you then proceed to speak of Bayesian analysis and prior distribution choice… and throw in a sprinkling of negative personalization (was it something I said?). Now, in my somewhat dated statistical training, I seem to recollect a strong emphasis on attempting to exclude (or at least limit) said bias/subjectivity in prior distributions… if you adhere to the subjectivist school of Bayesian analysis. On the other hand, the issue of prior distribution bias/subjectivity doesn’t come forward… if you adhere to the objectivist school of Bayesian analysis (and objective prior distributions)… a view of Bayesian analysis you seem unfamiliar with. As you said, “I really get the impression that you know how to quote the lingo but have little understanding of what it means”.

Because that is what it is.

You want a concrete example look at climate sensitivity. We have no idea what the actual sensitivity is nor do we even know if it is a constant (i.e. sensitivity could be higher coming out of an ice age than it is today).

all discussion to this point focused on equilibrium climate sensitivity… your reference to a non-equilibrium climate state (your ice age reference) is not germane to that discussion. If you’d like to open up the discussion to include a measure of the strengths of, for example, climate feedbacks at a particular time, then you need to explicitly state you’re speaking of effective (and not equilibrium ) climate sensitivity… or do you even recognize (or appreciate) the distinction?

Also sensitivity is something that can never be measured directly - it is something which can only be inferred by using a model that assigns values to many different unknown quantities (aerosols, cloud cover, et. al.).

no – independent of models, many studies have been done to calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations.

So what the IPCC did is assume that all estimates of CO2 sensitivity represented independent measurements and that CO2 sensitivity is a constant.

in your broad sweeping commentary, do you have something that calls to question the IPCC review of independent scientists conducting independent research and bringing forward, independently, their estimates for CO2 sensitivity? If you do, you’ll need to be more specific – beyond your broad brush commentary and implications. And, again, your “assuming constant” reference seems at odds in a discussion related to equilibrium sensitivity – hey?

It then constructed a PDF based on the range of values for these various methods. The trouble is this PDF could be completely wrong if any of their assumption are wrong. In this case the assumption that each estimates independent measurements is likely wrong because researchers estimates for unknown values like aerosols are affected by the expected result and this introduces a bias into the estimate. This bias is likely why the estimates of CO2 sensitivity have not changed for 30 years (1.5-4.5).

now… you’re simply, collectively, calling into question the studies/results… surely, you’re not implying the IPCC review constructed it’s own confidence levels, error bars, uncertainty factors, etc. The assorted resulting IPCC PDF’s simply mirror the study analysis/results… representing the broad assembly of studies within the review. The estimates of CO2 sensitivity have changed… I highlighted a few of the most significant changes for you in terms of TAR-to-AR4 progression. Firstly, the latest AR4 introduced defined probability (likelihood) assignments to those sensitivity ranges; secondly, in spite of your insistence in continuing to reference 1.5°C, AR4 no longer includes it within the recognized likely range… in fact, it explicitly states, “equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C” (that’s 90% probability… yet, you still insist on referencing 1.5°C as “plausible” – quite telling, indeed!). Your reference to aerosols/bias is, again, not germane to a discussion of equilibrium sensitivity… aerosols don't affect the intrinsic sensitivity of the climate, but, of course, as a forcing within the broad grouping of forcings, they are important to the actual transient climate response. But, it would appear, you’re not only unfamiliar with the distinction between equilibrium and effective climate sensitivity, you also don’t appear to recognize (or appreciate) transient climate response as a measure of the strength and rapidity of the surface temperature response to GHG forcing.

In fact there is a historical precedent for the kind of bias I describe with the estimates of electron charge which were originally conducted by Millikan. His value was wrong but it took a long time to discover this because scientists that replicated the experiment assumed that Millikan was right and adjusted their numbers to ensure a better match with Millikan. In an field were scientists that suggest a low CO2 sensitivity are immediately attacked at stooges of 'fossil fuel companies' it is not reasonable to claim that the exact same bias is not at work.

you mean like the hopelessly flawed Lindzen-Choi 2009 study that presumed to estimate sensitivity at 0.5°C? Would you really like to go there… or simply accept a, as you say, “stooging” on their part?

What this all means is the the 'quantitative' probabilities don't mean much. What matters is the range of plausible values. That is why I say the planet will warm due to CO2 and the only question is by how much.

obviously – but your insistence in holding to a minimalistic/optimistic 1.5°C climate sensitivity estimate, doesn’t fit within the IPCC probability categorizations. You continue to ignore the best-estimate of ~3°C and completely discount possibilities toward 4.5°C… because… you can. You wouldn’t bite, twice now, on my questioning your previously stated “business as usual (BAU) scenario” justification for your hanging on to the 1.5°C estimate value... so, let’s be more specific – hey? Since you’re the one that keeps drawing pointed reference to the IPCC reports, as the concept of BAU no longer exists within AR4, just what BAU scenario were/are you describing in presuming to hold to your 1.5°C sensitivity estimate?

[lukin]

Funny.

The woman in this video represents waldo,wyly. What a great little video. It explains what is the root of this alarmism BS.

[TimG]

Please validate that one, real world style. Your assertion that obsession with AGW caused them to drop their other duties seems ridiculous to me.

Here are links to how the AGW obession resulted in a billion wasted on a desalination plant that has been mothballed:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/queensland_scraps_the_desl_plant_that_tim_flannery_sold_as_essential

Here is a report that the flooding risk was known and ignored:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/alarming-report-on-risks-covered-up/story-e6frg6nf-1225986634328

Here is a link (middle of the page) to a government report that claims the now rejected dam would have greatly reduced the harms caused by this flood:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/45841/heres-the-evidence-that-dams-could-save-queensland-towns/

Would the dam have been built if they were not obsessed with CO2? Perhaps not. It is fair to claim that over-reliance on AGW predictions led to complacency.

Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

I'm particularly fond of this following exchange that pretty much tagged your knowledge level on sensitivity

Perhaps the most annoying thing with your debating style is your insistance that simply responding to a point means you have shown the point to be "wrong". In this case, everything I said in that exchange is correct. Claims of CO2 sensitivity are entirely dependent on the assumptions made and there are no empirical measurements that are not affected by these assumptions. This means that future data could easily show those estimates to be extremely wrong. The also means the PDFs offered by the IPCC (whether they have a lower bound of 1.5 or 2 is irrelevant) are a political exercise and cannot taken to be a description of reality. The true sensitivity given today's earth may be in that range or it may not. We simply do not know.

[Michael Hardner]

Would the dam have been built if they were not obsessed with CO2? Perhaps not.

Thank you.

[Michael Hardner]

Perhaps the most annoying thing with your debating style is your insistance that simply responding to a point means you have shown the point to be "wrong".

Most people who are right ARE indeed annoying. This is why Al Gore was never elected president.

[Michael Hardner]

The also means the PDFs offered by the IPCC (whether they have a lower bound of 1.5 or 2 is irrelevant) are a political exercise and cannot taken to be a description of reality. The true sensitivity given today's earth may be in that range or it may not. We simply do not know.

It's not a political exercise, it's a scientific exercise. The small degree to which they're adjusting the sensitivity ranges was kind of an eye-opener to me here.

[TimG]

Most people who are right ARE indeed annoying.

In waldo's case, he is mostly not right. He nitpicks on details that are irrelevant to the argument which offering nothing but handwaving opinion for key points - if he even acknowledges them.

[Michael Hardner]

In waldo's case, he is mostly not right. He nitpicks on details that are irrelevant to the argument which offering nothing but handwaving opinion for key points - if he even acknowledges them.

The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that Waldo mostly talks about the AGW science from what I've ready, not the policy advice and so on - which seems to be your major area of contention. So, you mostly agree with him it seems to me...

[TimG]

It's not a political exercise, it's a scientific exercise. The small degree to which they're adjusting the sensitivity ranges was kind of an eye-opener to me here.

At one level using Baysian analysis to come up with a PDF is an scientific exercise but a Baysian analysis can be completely wrong if the assumptions that it is built on are shown to be wrong. IOW, the IPCC numbers tell us that if we ASSUME that our current way of looking at climate is correct then it is 95% likely that sensitivity is within that range. But that is not the number I am interested in. The number I care about is how likely is it that those assumptions are wrong. I put that likelyhood at around 50% given the number of unanswered questions and evidence of groupthink with climate science. This means the chances of CO2 sensitivity being within the IPCC range is less than 50%.

Of course, the IPCC would like us to believe that the chance of the assumptions being wrong is near zero but that is where the politics come in.

But as I said before, I am fine accepting CO2 as a plausible risk among many and adding it to the list of things that it would be nice to do something about. I don't see it as a priority and I don't believe in wasting large sums of money that could be better used on more pressing problems.

Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG

[lukin]

There is no point trying to have a debate with waldo. I've tried on many occasions and all he does is copy and paste, copy and paste, lengthen threads etc. He can't formulate an original rebuttal to any question. He obviously doesn't have a real job as he is on this forum at all hours of the day and night. All he does is copy and paste the quotes of others all day long. If he knew anything about science like he claims, he'd have a real job.

[Guest TrueMetis]

There is no point trying to have a debate with waldo. I've tried on many occasions and all he does is copy and paste, copy and paste, lengthen threads etc. He can't formulate an original rebuttal to any question. He obviously doesn't have a real job as he is on this forum at all hours of the day and night. All he does is copy and paste the quotes of others all day long. If he knew anything about science like he claims, he'd have a real job.

You're the one posting stupid Youtube videos and yet he's the one who can't come up with an original rebuttal. Maybe it would help if you guys didn't just post the same garbage arguments.

[Michael Hardner]

At one level using Baysian analysis to come up with a PDF is an scientific exercise but a Baysian analysis can be completely wrong if the assumptions that it is built on are shown to be wrong. IOW, the IPCC numbers tell us that if we ASSUME that our current way of looking at climate is correct then it is 95% likely that sensitivity is within that range. But that is not the number I am interested in. The number I care about is how likely is it that those assumptions are wrong. I put that likelyhood at around 50% given the number of unanswered questions and evidence of groupthink with climate science. This means the chances of CO2 sensitivity being within the IPCC range is less than 50%.

The thing about your 50% is that there's no checking it - it's speculation. The climate sensitivity number can be checked.

[dre]

Alarmists are defined by what they say about the consequences of the warming

No tim. Alarmists are the guys claiming the entire world will collapse if we emmit less co2.