Why I am a conservative (Part One of Two)

[Michael Hardner]

Why? Maybe the best response to the science is to "wait and see"?

Maybe. But I mean action as in alerting the public, starting a discussion and so on.

But at least discussing the possibility for action if scientists believe there to be a concern is just common sense. Again, try to think outside the box of the climate change thing.

[ReeferMadness]

Reliable science meaning you can trust the scientific method to sort out what works and what does not. This is because there are many double blind experiments going on constantly as doctors try different approaches and determine what works and what does not. This connection to the real world is essential for any science. Without that connection you have nothing but unsubstantiated opinion.

And yet the internet is chock-a-block with "scientists" who hold "alternative" views on how to fight cancer. They're mostly quacks but they find an eager audience in people who don't like what traditional science and medicine are telling them. Many of these quacks have no credentials, crazy, too-good-to-be-true stories and bizarre theories.

Just like those "alternative" views on climate science.

[TimG]

And yet the internet is chock-a-block with "scientists" who hold "alternative" views on how to fight cancer.

But we know these people are quacks because their "treatments" cannot be shown to work in double blind studies. If a "quack" came up with a treatment that was shown to work in double blind studies this "quack" would be immediately promoted to "genius" no matter what his credentials.

Ultimately, science works because theories can be independently tested in controlled experiments. Without the ability to test theories you have opinion - not science.

The entire field of climate science is basically opinion because none of their theories can be tested and/or verified within a reasonable time frame.

You have nothing useful to contribute on the topic until you understand the fundamental difference between testable science and untestable opinions (a.k.a. climate science).

Edited December 1, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

But we know these people are quacks because their "treatments" cannot be shown to work in double blind studies. If a "quack" came up with a treatment that was shown to work in double blind studies this "quack" would be immediately promoted to "genius" no matter what his credentials.

Ultimately, science works because theories can be independently tested in controlled experiments. Without the ability to test theories you have opinion - not science.

The entire field of climate science is basically opinion because none of their theories can be tested and/or verified within a reasonable time frame.

You have nothing useful to contribute on the topic until you understand the fundamental difference between testable science and untestable opinions (a.k.a. climate science).

And yet for all of these beautiful double-blind studies, the progress has been maddeningly slow. Treatments are brutal and progress slow to the point that the cancer industry has redefined success to be anyone who is still alive five years after the cancer has been discovered. Better diagnostic tools mean earlier detection and that means that the chances of people still being alive goes up even if there is zero improvement in the treatment.

So, you go ahead and pick and choose which types of science you'll accept. After all, we wouldn't want to deprive you of your F350 for around town driving just on some pinko scientist hunch. Meanwhile, there are no climate change deniers to be found in the reinsurance industry.

In Munich Re’s offices, there wasn’t much debate as the claims cheques flew out the door: The higher frequency of extreme weather events is influenced by climate change; and recent climate change is largely due to burning hydrocarbons. “I’m quite convinced that most climate change is caused by human activity,” says Peter Höppe, head of geo-risks research at Munich Re.

But hey, just the people who would go under believe it, no need for you to worry your pretty head over it.

Just keep on wasting those fossil fuels. It's your patriotic duty.

[TimG]

And yet for all of these beautiful double-blind studies, the progress has been maddeningly slow.

So what? The point is there is a clear process for identifying which treatments work and which does not. In climate science the progress is based on who comes up with the ideas that generate the most research money and prestige for the scientists involved.

So, you go ahead and pick and choose which types of science you'll accept.

I am just explaining to you how the scientific process works - something you clearly do not understand. Bottom line stop pretending that the trust that we have in medicine should automatically apply to climate science. It doesn't/

there are no climate change deniers to be found in the reinsurance industry.

It is a silly article based one insurance company who has repeatedly misrepresented the science in public statements.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2010/09/munich-re-goes-too-far.html

And guess why: Munich Re is in the renewable energy business too and wants to attract government subsidies.

The actual science (in this case reliable science because it is just a statistical analysis of past events rather than predictions of the future) says there is no evidence of a link between AGW and weather extremes.

Edited December 1, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

So what? The point is there is a clear process for identifying which treatments work and which does not. In climate science the progress is based on who comes up with the ideas that generate the most research money and prestige for the scientists involved.

I am just explaining to you how the scientific process works - something you clearly do not understand. Bottom line stop pretending that the trust that we have in medicine should automatically apply to climate science. It doesn't/

It is a silly article based one insurance company who has repeatedly misrepresented the science in public statements.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2010/09/munich-re-goes-too-far.html

And guess why: Munich Re is in the renewable energy business too and wants to attract government subsidies.

The actual science (in this case reliable science because it is just a statistical analysis of past events rather than predictions of the future) says there is no evidence of a link between AGW and weather extremes.

Oh, now I get it. In Tim's world, all those climate scientists are a bunch of pinko liars and statistics proves that. Sooooooo.... if we ask the American Statistical Association for their view on this, they say:

Through a series of meetings spanning several years, IPCC drew in leading experts and assessed the relevant literature in the geosciences and related disciplines as it relates to climate change. The Fourth Assessment Report finds that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising mean sea level. … Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. … Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes, and wind patterns The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.

Geez, Tim. It looks like the science supports your position only if you choose your scientists veerrry carefully. Sort of like finding cancer cures on the internet.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sooooooo.... if we ask the American Statistical Association for their view on this, they say:

Never trust what the Americans say.....they are...after all....American !

[TimG]

Geez, Tim. It looks like the science supports your position only if you choose your scientists veerrry carefully. Sort of like finding cancer cures on the internet.

Gawd. Sometimes I think alarmists can't read. Please point me to where the ASA endorses the claim that AGW is causing more extreme weather events? It is not in that paragraph (other than temperature extremes). It is not really in the IPCC report either. Here is what the IPCC AR5 says on extreme weather.

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html

Bottom line: people who claim there evidence of a link between AGW and extreme weather events are completely misrepresenting the science (this include insurance companies looking to cash in on renewable subsidies).

Edited December 1, 2013 by TimG

[Remiel]

To address an earlier point from a week ago: To be a classical liberal you must have principles in line with classical liberalism. The current crop of Conservatives have all voted repeatedly for legislation which is completely at odds with the spirit of classical liberalism. I would argue that if you vote repeatedly for legislation (let alone introduce) which is repugnant to the motivating spirit of classical liberalism you do not in fact share the principles of classical liberalism. Therefore since no one in the Conservatives appears to really share the principles of classical liberalism, there are no classical liberals among the Conservative ranks in the House of Commons.

[ReeferMadness]

Gawd. Sometimes I think alarmists can't read. Please point me to where the ASA endorses the claim that AGW is causing more extreme weather events? It is not in that paragraph (other than temperature extremes). It is not really in the IPCC report either. Here is what the IPCC AR5 says on extreme weather.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html

Bottom line: people who claim there evidence of a link between AGW and extreme weather events are completely misrepresenting the science (this include insurance companies looking to cash in on renewable subsidies).

Oh, now you're quoting the IPCC. So you accept their findings that climate change is happening and it is almost certainly caused by humans, you just think that there is no pattern of extreme weather events (yet). Is that it?

As far as Munich Re goes, don't make me laugh. Are you seriously suggesting that the reinsurance giant is willing to compromise its core business for some renewable energy credits?

[TimG]

Oh, now you're quoting the IPCC. So you accept their findings that climate change is happening and it is almost certainly caused by humans, you just think that there is no pattern of extreme weather events.

Yes. But that is an important point because it illustrates how much alarmists, the so-called "believers in science", will discard science as soon as it gives answers that fail to support their agenda.

As for the claims that AGW will eventually cause more extremes: that is nothing but speculation at this point.

As far as Munich Re goes, don't make me laugh. Are you seriously suggesting that the reinsurance giant is willing to compromise its core business for some renewable energy credits?

I am saying that Munich Re has repeatly made public statements that not only go against the scientific evidence but repudiate claims published by their own analysts. Perhaps Munich Re management is simply filled with AGW zealots. But the reason does not matter. Munich Re is not a useful source of information on the topic.

Aside: insurance companies benefit from promoting the fear of climate change because a public will be less likely to complain about premium increases.

Edited December 1, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Yes. But that is an important point because it illustrates how much alarmists, the so-called "believers in science", will discard science as soon as it gives answers that fail to support their agenda.

As for the claims that AGW will eventually cause more extremes: that is nothing but speculation at this point.

I am saying that Munich Re has repeatly made public statements that not only go against the scientific evidence but repudiate claims published by their own analysts. Perhaps Munich Re management is simply filled with AGW zealots. But the reason does not matter. Munich Re is not a useful source of information on the topic.

Aside: insurance companies benefit from promoting the fear of climate change because a public will be less likely to complain about premium increases.

Oh, yah. Munich re is one just one of those huge multinational corporations that is famous for joining the great climate change conspiracy. Another is Shell Global. Do you think they also suffer from a scientific bias?

Energy demand could rise by up to 80% by 2050 while CO2 emissions must urgently fall to limit the impact of serious climate change.

It must be starting to get lonely out there in Denier Land. Don't forget to turn out the lights when you finally leave.

Edited December 2, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[TimG]

Do you think they also suffer from a scientific bias?

No - they suffer from a fear of regulation and a desire to kiss politician's a**es.

It must be starting to get lonely out there in Denier Land. Don't forget to turn out the lights when you finally leave.

You are precious. I give you references to the IPCC AR5 report that support my claim that there is absolutely no evidence of increase weather extremes. Yet you come back with statements from companies who's businesses depend on being on the good side of politicians and you seem to think that those opinions should carry more weight.

Why don't just admit that I am right and there is no evidence supporting a link between weather extremes and CO2 and that the people claiming there is one are basically deluded or liars.

[ReeferMadness]

No - they suffer from a fear of regulation and a desire to kiss politician's a**es.

You are precious. I give you references to the IPCC AR5 report that support my claim that there is absolutely no evidence of increase weather extremes. Yet you come back with statements from companies who's businesses depend on being on the good side of politicians and you seem to think that those opinions should carry more weight.

Why don't just admit that I am right and there is no evidence supporting a link between weather extremes and CO2 and that the people claiming there is one are basically deluded or liars.

So now you accept the IPCC as authoritative? Or are you just accepting the pieces that you like?

Because that's what denial is all about, isn't it?

[TimG]

So now you accept the IPCC as authoritative? Or are you just accepting the pieces that you like?

My opinion of the IPCC reports in general is not relevant. I made a specific claim and backed it up with the IPCC AR5. You can't either repudiate the IPCC or admit that I am right on this claim.

I also find it ironic that you accuse me of picking and choosing sources when you are the one who doing exactly that - all because you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that some of the alarmist claptrap you have been told to believe is actually false.