Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[waldo]

please Pliny, please... bring your Mr. Wizard hollow argument self out!

Whoa....another total refutation, dude.

Al Gore, Pliny?

[Pliny]

How about a good refutation on my exponential/linear nonsense? Please? Better than calling me names. What do the scriptures say, oh great master of refutations?

PS maybe you can set a refutation record today!

Edited September 21, 2012 by Pliny

[wyly]

denierism could be a topic unto itself in a mental health or psychology thread, what is at play here, how do seemingly normal people in face of all factual evidence to the contrary deny the obvious?

my daughter an anthropologist/historian related to me how in an anatomy class the prof asked any devout christians to identify themselves then asked them to identify the sex of a skeleton in the class, "it's a female" came the answer from a young lady...why? "it has 24 ribs one more than a man" ...the prof corrected her, all humans have 24 ribs, male and female..."then there's a mistake that must be a female"...no said the prof we know who the bones belonged to, he was a man...still the student refused to accept it, her bible teachings disagreed with the hard evidence what was in front of her face...the prof finished with telling them he wasn't out to challenge their faith but if the question was asked on an exam the answer is 24 ribs whether you believe it or not...

so what is happening in the brain where a person can delude themselves to deny the obvious? for some it's purely a political game, for others it's what????...what weird process is going on that laymen can convince themselves they absolutely positively know more than highly trained experts who have decades of experience?

[waldo]

How about a good refutation on my exponential/linear nonsense? Please?

were you just teasing... are you really not going to bring out your Mr. Wizard self after all?

according to the theory, GHGs are building up in the atmosphere annually and it is GHGs that are the source of AGW. How is it possible to have a decrease in warming with a constant increase in GHGs? You can say there are other factors but the argument is that it is GHGs that are the source of the problem. The argument real skeptics make is that CO2 build up that exceeds the natural cycling levels builds up and does not disappear for as much as a century. That may be correct, but if so the warming should be exponential and it is not.

interesting, particularly given the logarithmic relationship between a rising atmospheric CO2 level and its associated radiative forcing proportional affect on warming. Tell me - what distinguishes logarithmic and exponential changes over time... is one, uhhh... the inverse of the other?

waldo...I'm surprised. If the accumulation of GHGs remained constant the temperature change might rise linearly. However, the accumulation is not constant and the fact it is a continuing increased accumulation should result in an exponential rise in temperature. Obviously this has not been demonstrated in reality but seems to be the "projection" you prefer and we should be half way to the fox's den by now.

... don't hesitate to offer substantiation to your claim of expected (but not realized) "exponential" temperature rise, particularly in regards the logarithmic relationship I described.

[Moonbox]

Your nonsensical (self-serving) position requires that any response to these same repeated (and previously refuted) denier talking points, must be a response that can't draw reference to any previous posting/refutation... of the same denier talking points... by the very same deniers who have previously raised them in the past.

Let me make it crystal clear to you, in your own language (lol what a contradiction):

Notwithstanding the fact that you may have relevant point to make, the aforementioned excessive use of quotations...as well as the unnecessary and constant use of cumbersome words, poor punctuation and sentence structure...whether or not that comes from insecurity and pompous grandiloquence or an inability to articulate, your posts are often just painful/tedious to read...resulting in most people just skipping over them...and yes...you just left here bashing your head against the wall trying to convince Shady and whomever of something they're determined not to listen to.

[waldo]

Let me make it crystal clear to you

did you work hard on that... really, really hard?

[wyly]

Let me make it crystal clear to you, in your own language (lol what a contradiction):

Notwithstanding the fact that you may have relevant point to make, the aforementioned excessive use of quotations...as well as the unnecessary and constant use of cumbersome words, poor punctuation and sentence structure...whether or not that comes from insecurity and pompous grandiloquence or an inability to articulate, your posts are often just painful/tedious to read...resulting in most people just skipping over them...and yes...you just left here bashing your head against the wall trying to convince Shady and whomever of something they're determined not to listen to.

oh no! the grammar and cumbersome word police are here ...if you don't like it don't read it...hey! here's a revelation for ya, use the ignore feature and you'll never need see waldo's excessive quotations again ...

geez enough of the excessive whining get on with your life...we're all adults here shady, pliny, simple,jgb et al. are big boys and can look after themselves...

[waldo]

denierism could be a topic unto itself in a mental health or psychology thread, what is at play here, how do seemingly normal people in face of all factual evidence to the contrary deny the obvious?

.

so what is happening in the brain where a person can delude themselves to deny the obvious? for some it's purely a political game, for others it's what????...what weird process is going on that laymen can convince themselves they absolutely positively know more than highly trained experts who have decades of experience?

Michael touched upon it earlier... an anti-authoritarian bent... or a lazy self-serving bow to misinterpreted libertarianism ... or an alignment with the "big Government BAD... 'World Government' intrusion... wealth distribution meme".....

[wyly]

Michael touched upon it earlier... an anti-authoritarian bent... or a lazy self-serving bow to misinterpreted libertarianism ... or an alignment with the "big Government BAD... 'World Government' intrusion... wealth distribution meme".....

that explains some of them the political game but not all...

my dad was one of the others, if someone said the sun rose in the east he argue and say it rose in the west, an exaggeration but he was that type to irrationally challenge verified findings on topics he knew nothing(no expertise) about...

[Pliny]

were you just teasing... are you really not going to bring out your Mr. Wizard self after all?

So...nothing more? I missed that total refutation.

[eyeball]

so what is happening in the brain where a person can delude themselves to deny the obvious? for some it's purely a political game, for others it's what????...what weird process is going on that laymen can convince themselves they absolutely positively know more than highly trained experts who have decades of experience?

It stands to reason brain scans taken during the process would reveal the neurological pathways and correlates of self delusion. I'm betting you'd find these are tangled up with brain processes associated with faith and gambling.

Is the capacity to wilfully suspend one's disbelief an evolved trait? If so what possible purpose does it serve, how does it confer an ability to survive?

Maybe it's some sort of terminator trait that's been triggered by overpopulation.

[waldo]

So...nothing more? I missed that total refutation.

not today Pliny - I danced to your last CO2 related idiocy in the past, across multiple threads... if nothing else it most certainly exposed your Mr. Wizard "prowess"! You do remember being punted over your 'breathing exhalation' nonsense... or your mindless fumbling over 'carbon isotope variants of CO2'? Right? Good times, hey Pliny?

I quoted you the exact sequence of exchange where you've made unsubstantiated claims concerning (expected) exponential temperature change relative to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. If you're not prepared to bring out Mr. Wizard just fade away, Pliny.

[wyly]

It stands to reason brain scans taken during the process would reveal the neurological pathways and correlates of self delusion. I'm betting you'd find these are tangled up with brain processes associated with faith and gambling.

Is the capacity to wilfully suspend one's disbelief an evolved trait? If so what possible purpose does it serve, how does it confer an ability to survive?

Maybe it's some sort of terminator trait that's been triggered by overpopulation.

ahh interesting thoughts eyeball....i'll quizz my neurologist buddy and get his opinion, he's related instances of irrational behavior but we never discussed it in terms of brain scans and survival behavior...

[TimG]

Far better than a consensus that it increases global temperatures and could have catastrophic effects?

"Could" is the operative word in that sentence. How likely are those catastrophic effects? You will find no consensus.

What we have is a simple question of risk tolerance. Some people like to ride motorcycles. Others refuse because they see them and dangerous. Neither person is "right" - they just have different risk tolerances.

The issue is there are lot of people that have a high risk tolerance when it comes to these predictions of catastrophe and are willing to risk it - especially since there is not anything we can really do about anyways.

The problem in the debate are juvenile catastrophists who pretend that this is an issue of science rather than politics and seek to shut down debate.

[waldo]

The problem in the debate are juvenile catastrophists who pretend that this is an issue of science rather than politics and seek to shut down debate.

the problem in the debate are juvenile fake skeptic, 'delay action at all costs', concern trolls, who pretend global impacting science is inconsequential when balanced against a politicized, self-serving, localized, cost-benefit risk management assessment.

[Michael Hardner]

"Could" is the operative word in that sentence. How likely are those catastrophic effects? You will find no consensus.

Right, but "could" doesn't mean "possibly" in this sense. It means a significant chance. Even if it's in the single digits, it needs to be looked at.

The issue is there are lot of people that have a high risk tolerance when it comes to these predictions of catastrophe and are willing to risk it - especially since there is not anything we can really do about anyways.

The ones who will pay the most if the risk comes to pass - they have no voice in the debate. As such, you're acknowledging that the richest nations will have to pay more if these risks are realized.

[TimG]

Right, but "could" doesn't mean "possibly" in this sense. It means a significant chance. Even if it's in the single digits, it needs to be looked at.

The fact is the "science" behind these attempts to quantify the risk is no better than astrology. I go by history and history tells me that catastrophists are always wrong - the problems are never as bad as they claimed even if they occur at all. There is no reason to believe they will be any more right this time.

The ones who will pay the most if the risk comes to pass - they have no voice in the debate. As such, you're acknowledging that the richest nations will have to pay more if these risks are realized.

Again - nonsense. The countries that are poor are poor because they have dysfunctional governments. As country after country succeeds by adopting the basic principals of success (free market and rule of law) the excuses of the laggards become even more lame. It is not the fault of anyone in the west that the poor are poor. Edited September 21, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The fact is the "science" behind these attempts to quantify the risk is no better than astrology. I go by history and history tells me that catastrophists are always wrong - the problems are never as bad as they claimed even if they occur at all. There is no reason to believe they will be any more right this time.

Again - nonsense. The countries that are poor are poor because they have dysfunctional governments. As country after country succeeds by adopting the basic principals of success (free market and rule of law) the excuses of the laggards become even more lame. It is not the fault of anyone in the west that the poor are poor.

1. You don't need to quantify the risk to the nth degree. Is it significant ? It seems to be a no brainer that it is.

2. So if we impact poor countries by our decisions to accept risk on their behalf, you're saying we have no additional obligation to help them ? I don't agree.

[wyly]

The fact is the "science" behind these attempts to quantify the risk is no better than astrology. I go by history and history tells me that catastrophists are always wrong - the problems are never as bad as they claimed even if they occur at all. There is no reason to believe they will be any more right this time.

Again - nonsense. The countries that are poor are poor because they have dysfunctional governments. As country after country succeeds by adopting the basic principals of success (free market and rule of law) the excuses of the laggards become even more lame. It is not the fault of anyone in the west that the poor are poor.

: ya like a direct hit by a hurricane on New Orleans would never happen ...that modern nuclear power is safe,a meltdown can never happen, Chernobyl...that the japanese are so good at earthquake design their nuclear power plants and numerous fail safe precautions were foolproof vs major earthquakes and tsunami's, absolutely impossible to have a meltdown ...like ignoring warnings that a major earthquake could cause a catastrophic loss of life on seacoasts due to tsunami's, Indonesia...hey no worries it's just doom and gloom scaremongers using astrology there's absolutely no basis to scientific research

[TimG]

1. You don't need to quantify the risk to the nth degree. Is it significant ? It seems to be a no brainer that it is.

Actually I have seen no convincing evidence that to risk is remotely significant. The planet will get warmer but warmer is not necessarily bad and humans are quite adaptable. The only real issue are people who think any change is bad.

But the bigger issue is what could we do if there was a real risk. The short answer is nothing. No policies are going to have any impact on the total CO2 emitted by humans. The best we could do is shuffle it around between countries. Given the fact that almost all anti-CO2 policies are basically useless I don't see the point.

2. So if we impact poor countries by our decisions to accept risk on their behalf, you're saying we have no additional obligation to help them ? I don't agree.

You are entitled to give your money to whatever cause you believe in. Just don't try to force me to join you.

[dre]

Far better than a consensus that it increases global temperatures and could have catastrophic effects ?

Hmmm....

It seems like another manifestation of the traditional American anti-authoritarian meme, which is being used as a blunt instrument in the wrong way here, I think.

Well there is other very good reasons for a broad range of different actions.

A lot of co2 emissions are the result of how we generate and use energy, and co2 emissions are just one reason why we need to expedite our departure from the fossil fuel age. Energy prices are increasing fast, and have already become an impediment to economic growth. And our energy paradigm is a major contributor to political instability as well.

Theres actually pretty good synergy between these concerns if we take the right approach.

[TimG]

that modern nuclear power is safe

Nuclear power is incredibly safe. Even in Japan where four nuclear power plants were by the tsunami only one had problems. Even though the Fukushima incident was bad it was still at less that what the catastrophists were claiming.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually I have seen no convincing evidence that to risk is remotely significant. The planet will get warmer but warmer is not necessarily bad and humans are quite adaptable.

Saying the planet will get significantly warmer alone makes it a risk.

If you opt to do nothing, there may be more money to be paid later, and you will have to pay.

Unfortunately, you don't get to decide for me any more than I get to decide for you.

[dre]

Nuclear power is incredibly safe. Even in Japan where four nuclear power plants were by the tsunami only one had problems. Even though the Fukushima incident was bad it was still at less that what the catastrophists were claiming.

I agree. I think we can build safe nuclear plants, and we should. But its not any kind of silver bullet. If you look at the completely cycle from initial conception of a plant to its eventual decommisioning its insanely expensive, and the cost of new plants is rising very quickly. And since private investors have little interest in putting up the capital required to build them, and western governments are flat broke theres only so far we can go.

[TimG]

Energy prices are increasing fast, and have already become an impediment to economic growth.

Last time I checked natural gas prices are a record lows. We are swimming in it. The glut of natural gas has led to a huge reduction in US CO2 production yet that had nothing to do with the hair brained anti-CO2 policies.