Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you had finished watching the video, he himself agrees.

If you watch the follow up material, he also addresses everything you just pointed to.

Risk does indeed have two dimensions, magnitude and probability. Something I have had a hard time getting WC to accept.

He most certainly does not. He even goes onto use the switch analogy and talk about us needing to get over to column A.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what I am talking about.

I assume you are talking about his discussion of water and air pollution with all the red bull cans. That is not what I am talking about.

What I am talking about is his chart where he gives a total of 4 variables: action, inaction, nothing happens, and the world ends. I am saying this is completely unrepresentative of reality.

The choices are not action or inaction. It is things like controlling black carbon emissions, energy policy, foreign policy and the like. I think even ninny's like WC and Darrin at their core realize that some measures need to be taken even if they like parroting the GOP party line.

The choices are not nothing happens and we all die. I would imagine there are strange attractors around increased global rainfall and other positive outcomes just as much as there are for the weather spiraling into venuslike conditions and many many choices between.

I see no real difference in the tactics that this guy puts out and the doomsday scenarios laid out by conservatives to justify their 'wars' on terror and drugs. It only serves to feed the fire of their methods.

He uses the example of car insurance which again is . The worst case scenarios in car insurance are well known and the risk management uses several axes: age, car driven, accident record, driving record, types of coverage, coverage limits, etc.

The key in risk assessment is finding all the variables and attributing probabilities and weighing them. He comes nowhere near doing this. In fact, he does not even try. What this guy is doing is fearmongering in order to scare people into his viewpoint.

As for his subsequent videos, you are the one making these assertions. I have neither the desire nor the inclination to rebut my refutation of your (or his) assertion.

Oh and hopefully in your list at the beginning you included Darrin ignoring me asking him whether he gave any credence to the probability that the scientists predicting negative impacts at all. He obviously does but just will not admit it.

Do not get me wrong, I agree with the guy's overall conclusion but his methodology is bull .

[MannyIsGod]

I think you watch "The day After" one too many times. Some of us believe Global Warming is good.

1) Added CO2 increases crop output.

All things being equal but of course this fails to mention the complexity of other variables.

2) Added warmth increases usable land.

3) Added warmth adds precipitation, and should reduce drought. Not increase it.

Um, not necessarily. Changing climates can and do mean more drought in locations and more more variability in others. Its a give and take and that doesn't mean its a net gain or a net loss. A changing climate over the entire globe will not mean the same results for every location and there certainly will be areas that experience far greater amounts of drought.

I do think that there will be increased areas where you will be able to farm but if there is increased drought in areas currently rich in farming infrastructure then in the near term it equals a loss of food production on a large scale. I have argued that in the long run AGW may indeed have positive effects but its not a given.

4) The atmosphere has an dynamic relationship of cloud cover with warmth. It becomes self regulating, increasing the albedo and reducing the driving force of the greenhouse effect. This is one place AGW theories fail. they refuse to predict based on a dynamic albedo, but use a static relationship.

People who study the cloud relationship far more extensively than you can't make this claim but you can? This is utter and complete unsubstantiated bull . Yes, current cloud modeling is parametrized on a very basic level but that doesn't mean you can come to this conclusion at all. Your final statement here is just false.

I could go on, but why beat a dead horse? Besides, I'm mul asking, doing two other things also. Just jumping in here from time to time.

No one cares what you're doing. When we do, we'll ask.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW that post is also an excellent example of how you just throw whatever you can at a wall and hope it sticks. You've jumped all over so many different and conflicting theories that I'm amazed you don't have whiplash.

[RandomGuy]

Some of us believe Global Warming is good.

"Some of us" don't believe we landed on the moon.

This is a logical fallacy, by the way.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html

1) Added CO2 increases crop output.

It does. Please quantify the effect for wheat, corn, and rice, and compare that to current and probable future CO2 concentrations. The question that should be answered is: How much CO2 provides how much added average global yield.

Get cracking.

If you cannot answer this, we must conservatively assume that the benefits are outweighed by the risks.

2) Added warmth increases usable land.

Please demonstrate how adding warmth to a desert will make that desert more arable.
Then quantify how much arable land will be added, and balance that versus the potential expansion of deserts that will remove arable land.
You can't support this thesis without consideration of rainfall. More temperature without more rainfall simply increases desertification.

3) Added warmth adds precipitation, and should reduce drought. Not increase it.

Should. If that rainfall happens to be on land, and doesn't dry up faster than it is added. To support this thesis, you would have to quantify this as well to a reasonable degree.

4) The atmosphere has an dynamic relationship of cloud cover with warmth. It becomes self regulating, increasing the albedo and reducing the driving force of the greenhouse effect. This is one place AGW theories fail. they refuse to predict based on a dynamic albedo, but use a static relationship.

Link?

I see a lot of "what ifs" with unsupported assertions.

Unless you can prove the benefits of climate change to a reasonable degree, we must, under conservative principles, steeply downgrade their consideration.

[RandomGuy]

I'll say it again. Once the people who claim there is a climatological crisis start acting like there's a climatological crisis, I'll start paying attention.


Europe on track for Kyoto targets while emissions from imported goods rise


It's a sham. From Al Gore and his million-man-equivalent carbon footprint to Nancy Pelosi and the rest of them in Congress who fly around on military jets as if they were riding a bike to the corner store.

This is by the way, yet another logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...tu-quoque.html

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

[Parker2112]

the question isnt whether its solid science.

The question is whether we need to take responsibility for ourselves, or grant/lose more power/authority/debt/dollars/rights to the bloated federal vac that is sucking wealth right out of middle class pockets and delivering it into the hands of bailout recipients/wall st.

If you believe that big govt is the only way to get done, you sell the country short.

And if you put all your faith into a corrupt batch of distant/despondent/bought-and-sold politicians, thousands of miles away from you and your problems, and only a few blocks from some of the the wealthiest lobby groups in the world, you sell the country out.

[Winehole23]

The question is whether we need to take responsibility for ourselves, or grant/lose more power/authority/debt/dollars/rights...

Take responsibility for ourselves how?

[DarrinS]

Bottom line:


Skepticism that CO2 causes catostrophic climate change is NOT equivalent to:


9/11 twooferism
Holocaust denial
Believing moon landing was faked
etc. etc.

[MannyIsGod]

Because you say so?

[Winehole23]

(catostrophic fail)

[MannyIsGod]

In any event, skepticism is fine. Outright denial and repeating of bull read on the internet that has been refuted time and time again is exactly the same as those things Darrin listed. Anyone who thinks that is skepticism needs to grab a dictionary.

[DarrinS]

In any event, skepticism is fine. Outright denial and repeating of bull read on the internet that has been refuted time and time again is exactly the same as those things Darrin listed. Anyone who thinks that is skepticism needs to grab a dictionary.

Manny,


Do you think computer models that turn random noise into hockey-shaped graphs are good models?

[MannyIsGod]

I might as well be talking to Mouse about the moon landing. I'm actually glad you pointed out how similar your debating styles on the two subjects are, Darrin. Its uncanny.

[DarrinS]

I wonder when global temperature will get back to 1998 levels?


Not 1999-2009.


And it's not looking good for 2010.

[Winehole23]

(#451)

[Parker2112]

In any event, skepticism is fine. Outright denial and repeating of bull read on the internet that has been refuted time and time again is exactly the same as those things Darrin listed. Anyone who thinks that is skepticism needs to grab a dictionary.

You are convinced...we understand. That doesnt really qualify you to summarize other views as wholly with/without merit, does it?

Are you a scientist specializing in this field? Or are you just a buyer of what youve been told?

[TeyshaBlue]

Are you a scientist specializing in this field? Or are you just a buyer of what youve been told?

I think Manny's working on some skins for the wall if he don't already have 'em. He can lay down some science on the topic.

[RandomGuy]

Bottom line:


Skepticism that CO2 causes catostrophic climate change is NOT equivalent to:


9/11 twooferism
Holocaust denial
Believing moon landing was faked
etc. etc.

It is the way you do it.

Care to add another logical fallacy to your score?

[RandomGuy]

the question isnt whether its solid science.

The question is whether we need to take responsibility for ourselves, or grant/lose more power/authority/debt/dollars/rights to the bloated federal vac that is sucking wealth right out of middle class pockets and delivering it into the hands of bailout recipients/wall st.

If you believe that big govt is the only way to get done, you sell the country short.

And if you put all your faith into a corrupt batch of distant/despondent/bought-and-sold politicians, thousands of miles away from you and your problems, and only a few blocks from some of the the wealthiest lobby groups in the world, you sell the country out.

Good gravy, is there anything that DOESN'T get subordinated to this belief of yours?

"the question isn't whether Quizno's or Thundercloud makes the best subs.

It is about how big government is taking away your freedom"


Huh?

Seriously though, it is exactly how scientifically valid this stuff is. If, as seems reasonable, there is some fair basis for being concerned then taking some steps to mitigating the risks is a reasonable, conservative thing to do.

[MannyIsGod]

You are convinced...we understand. That doesnt really qualify you to summarize other views as wholly with/without merit, does it?

Actually rational thought qualifies me to do that. If someone says that Santa Clause is real I'll definitely qualify their view as without merit.

That being said, thats not what I've done here at all.

Are you a scientist specializing in this field? Or are you just a buyer of what youve been told?

I wonder at what point I become a scientist. I am working on degrees in a science at the moment. I don't claim to understand every aspect of climate science by a long shot. I'm never going to be a chemist or a geologist so I do take the word of experts in those fields.

[Parker2112]

Be careful how much authority you allow yourself pursuant to your own "rational thought."

You might start sounding like the Bush Admin and the right wing, shouting down/drowning out those with opposing views.

At what point could anyone anywhere be 100% sure that global warming is going down like we believe? When is any human 100% infallible? At what point is all opposition unacceptable? When is that ever wise?

If you temper your angle just a tad, from "opposition is unacceptable" to something closer to "I'm extremely knowledgable/informed on science" you would do your message a favor.

[MannyIsGod]

I said opposition is unacceptable?

[MannyIsGod]

Once again Parker displays his love of listening to himself speak to the point of ignoring what is said.

[Parker2112]

just implied.

In any event, skepticism is fine. Outright denial (on the other hand)...(then goes on to equate it to various other unacceptable opinions, in Manny's opinion)...

[MannyIsGod]

So, I implied it by first saying that skepticism was fine. Seems an odd way to start that off. If I implied it why did you have to remove my words and insert your bull in its place? Would you not be able to simply quote me and let people decide for themselves what I implied? No, you had to add your complete bull (because why listen when you can talk so more. Ah, your voice is so lovely Parker).