Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[RandomGuy]

Wow...

And at what cost?

Are you seriously that ignorant?

Just how are you going to integrate that into every nation on the planet?

Further, merely mandating minor electrical efficiency gains is still easy to do.

The big bad government you have been pissing and moaning about phasing out incandescents has meant that utilities have had to build far fewer electrical plants.

[RandomGuy]

Wow...

And at what cost?

Are you seriously that ignorant?

Just how are you going to integrate that into every nation on the planet?

Developing countries actually will get to leap-frog the developed world. They get to built out their infrastructure using distributed schemes that might not make sense in the US, and probably building up to us in a way that overall ends up being cheaper.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I imagine if we took our defense spending and reduced it to 150% of what country number 2 spends we could fund an energy and telecom infrastructure retooling.

[Chris]

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/...hoax-heres-why


Global Warming is a Hoax: Here’s Why!

[spurraider21]

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/...hoax-heres-why


Global Warming is a Hoax: Here’s Why!

so i sat through and commented thoroughly on a 45 minute ty crowder video, and instead of responding to any of it you just spam another one

[Chris]

so i sat through and commented thoroughly on a 45 minute ty crowder video, and instead of responding to any of it you just spam another one

You are much more well versed in the 'science' and data that I am so I will not pretend to try to educate you about that. I'm looking at it from a different perspective. I do think it's silly that you expect the scientist in the Crowder segment to cite actual pages from books during a casual conversation. That screams of cognitive dissonance especially if a source is given then ridiculed for it's host instead of its content.

[spurraider21]

You are much more well versed in the 'science' and data that I am so I will not pretend to try to educate you about that. I'm looking at it from a different perspective. I do think it's silly that you expect the scientist in the Crowder segment to cite actual pages from books during a casual conversation. That screams of cognitive dissonance especially if a source is given then ridiculed for it's host instead of its content.

no, not really. when i've watched lectures or even watched youtube videos of people discussing the issue, i always expect citations. look at the crowder response videos i posted on page 107 (link here http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post9000258). throughout the video he refers to citations, and the description of the videos are full of citations/links and timestamps

that's not cognitive dissonance, that's just common sense. it's why i'll always prefer a scientific publication, which must rigorously cite to everything they claim over some ing blog with flashy headlines

this is something i'll take more seriously than some guy just talking out of his ass. but no, i'm sure ing morris knows more than every scientist on the planet combined

[spurraider21]

Chris ask yourself why he picks specifically 1998 as a starting point... you dont have to be scientifically versed to understand it

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They'll be using 2016 as a starting point in a few more years. It was a significant EN event.

Then you have next level ignorance like WC trying to claim that the ocean's circulation acting as a heat sink meant it was not warming.

[Chris]

Chris ask yourself why he picks specifically 1998 as a starting point... you dont have to be scientifically versed to understand it

He's simply saying that for the last 19 years there has been no significant change in temperatures (ie:Global Warming,Climate Change). He acknowledged 1997 as an anomaly shortly after that. He then red pills everyone about the real reason it's being propagated and where the money's going.


You've been tricked; hoodwinked.

[spurraider21]

He's simply saying that for the last 19 years there has been no significant change in temperatures (ie:Global Warming,Climate Change). He acknowledged 1997 as an anomaly shortly after that. He then red pills everyone about the real reason it's being propagated and where the money's going.


You've been tricked; hoodwinked.

yes, and "the last 19 years" conveniently starts at 1998. looking at the chart i posted, can you use your big boy brain and tell me why he chose 1998 and not, say, 1996? or 2000, or literally any other year around that timespan? its funny because there's been significant change in temperature in the last 18 years. there's been significant change in the last 20 years. but when you cherry pick exactly 19 years, you get a different picture. can you explain why he specifically chooses 1998 as a starting point?

or when he says the arctic ice cap isn't shrinking... where is he getting that data from?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...6GL069666/full

[spurraider21]

and Chris let me know when you've returned the favor and watch the video's i linked earlier. i did you the courtesy of watching a 45 minute video. the 3 i posted have a total of about 43 minutes, and that's a bit much. how about you just watch one of them and tell me what you think of the citations/studies referenced, and tell me if expecting them is just "cognitive dissonance"

[Wild Cobra]

They'll be using 2016 as a starting point in a few more years. It was a significant EN event.

Then you have next level ignorance like WC trying to claim that the ocean's circulation acting as a heat sink meant it was not warming.

LOL...

When did I say its not warming?

Go off you idiot.

[Chris]

and Chris let me know when you've returned the favor and watch the video's i linked earlier. i did you the courtesy of watching a 45 minute video. the 3 i posted have a total of about 43 minutes, and that's a bit much. how about you just watch one of them and tell me what you think of the citations/studies referenced, and tell me if expecting them is just "cognitive dissonance"

I will watch them

[Wild Cobra]

Random.

have you seen what it is doing to prices in Germany, even with the subsidies?

Then to have zero emission, how are you going to force the rest of the world? At the gunpoint of our military?

There is no way to do so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

When did I say its not warming?

Go off you idiot.

You said it was the ocean circulation and not CO2 that was causing warming. You also waved your hands at soot in the same manner.

Anything to protect your fossil fuel masters.

[Wild Cobra]

You said it was the ocean circulation and not CO2 that was causing warming. You also waved your hands at soot in the same manner.

Anything to protect your fossil fuel masters.

LOL...

If you say so.

LOL...

I claim the sun is warming the ocean rather than CO2.

I claim soot is melting the northern ice more than CO2, and that it warms more than the IPCC claims.

Just how bad is your comprehension skills?

LOL...

LOL...

[RandomGuy]

Random.

have you seen what it is doing to prices in Germany, even with the subsidies?

Then to have zero emission, how are you going to force the rest of the world? At the gunpoint of our military?

There is no way to do so.

As noted before, no small part of their problem is that they are getting rid of their nukes, and that PV is a lot less efficient at that la ude.

Neither of which will happen in the US.

I am very cognizant of German electricity prices, yes.

The rest of the world will simply have to agree, I don't think there is any need to force anybody. Efficiencies of scale and learning curves are bringing down the costs of renewables.

Further coal requires a lot of nasty mining and burning.

The problem with a lot of the developing world is getting fuel for the plants. No money for fuel... no fuel, no power. Trucker strike... no fuel, no power.

Renewables for the developing world, especially those countries nearer the equator is an easy case to make from a free market perspective.

No need to force anybody to do anything. That really is a bizarre assertion, i.e. that it would be necessary.

[Wild Cobra]

The rest of the world will simply have to agree, I don't think there is any need to force anybody.

Wow.

"Simply have to agree?" LOL... Never happen!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

If you say so.

LOL...

I claim the sun is warming the ocean rather than CO2.

I claim soot is melting the northern ice more than CO2, and that it warms more than the IPCC claims.

Just how bad is your comprehension skills?

LOL...

LOL...

GHG warm the ocean in addition to direct solar ir, dim.

You claimed soot accounted for all the arctic melt. You also said their models ignored soot's input.

That is your whole schtick: barely understand a concept and then pretend that is the only thing that matters. All or nothing stupidity from the resident idiot.

[DarrinS]

How to Convince Skeptics that Climate Change is a Problem

Posted March 8th, 2017 @ 1:32pm in #climate science

I don’t know much about science, and even less about climate science. So as a practical matter, I like to side with the majority of scientists until they change their collective minds. They might be wrong, but their guess is probably better than mine.

That said, it is mind-boggling to me that the scientific community can’t make a case for climate science that sounds convincing, even to some of the people on their side, such as me. In other words, I think scientists are right (because I play the odds), but I am puzzled by why they can’t put together a convincing argument, whereas the skeptics can, and easily do. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

As a public service, and to save the planet, obviously, I will tell you what it would take to convince skeptics that climate science is a problem that we must fix. Please avoid the following persuasion mistakes.

1. Stop telling me the “models” (plural) are good. If you told me one specific model was good, that might sound convincing. But if climate scientists have multiple models, and they all point in the same general direction, something sounds fishy. If climate science is relatively “settled,” wouldn’t we all use the same models and assumptions?

And why can’t science tell me which one of the different models is the good one, so we can ignore the less-good ones? What’s up with that? If you can’t tell me which model is better than the others, why would I believe anything about them?

2. Stop telling me the climate models are excellent at hindcasting, meaning they work when you look at history. That is also true of financial models, and we know financial models can NOT predict the future. We also know that investment advisors like to show you their pure-luck past performance to scam you into thinking they can do it in the future. To put it bluntly, climate science is using the most well-known scam method (predicting the past) to gain credibility. That doesn’t mean climate models are scams. It only means scientists picked the least credible way to claim credibility. Were there no options for presenting their case in a credible way?

Just to be clear, hindcasting is a necessary check-off for knowing your models are rational and worthy of testing in the future. But it tells you nothing of their ability to predict the future. If scientists were honest about that point, they would be more credible.

3. Tell me what percentage of warming is caused by humans versus natural causes. If humans are 10% of the cause, I am not so worried. If we are 90%, you have my attention. And if you leave out the percentage caused by humans, I have to assume the omission is intentional. And why would you leave out the most important number if you were being straight with people? Sounds fishy.

There might be a good reason why science doesn’t know the percentage of human-made warming and still has a good reason for being alarmed. I just haven’t seen it, and I’ve been looking for it. Why would climate science ignore the only important fact for persuasion?

Today I saw an article saying humans are responsible for MORE than 100% of warming because the earth would otherwise be in a cooling state. No links provided. Credibility = zero.

4. Stop attacking some of the messengers for believing that our reality holds evidence of Intelligent Design. Climate science alarmists need to update their thinking to the “simulated universe” idea that makes a convincing case that we are a trillion times more likely to be a simulation than we are likely to be the first creatures who can create one. No God is required in that theory, and it is entirely compatible with accepted science. (Even if it is wrong.)

5. Skeptics produce charts of the earth’s temperature going up and down for ages before humans were industrialized. If you can’t explain-away that chart, I can’t hear anything else you say. I believe the climate alarmists are talking about the rate of increase, not the actual temperatures. But why do I never see their chart overlayed on the skeptics’ chart so we can see the difference? That seems like the obvious thing to do. In fact, climate alarmists should throw out everything but that one chart.

6. Stop telling me the arctic ice on one pole is decreasing if you are ignoring the increase on the other pole. Or tell me why the experts observing the ice increase are wrong. When you ignore the claim, it feels fishy.

7. When skeptics point out that the Earth has not warmed as predicted, don’t change the subject to sea levels. That sounds fishy.

8. Don’t let the skeptics talk last. The typical arc I see online is that Climate Scientists point out that temperatures are rising, then skeptics produce a chart saying the temperatures are always fluctuating, and have for as far as we can measure. If the real argument is about rate of change, stop telling me about record high temperatures as if they are proof of something.

9. Stop pointing to record warmth in one place when we’re also having record cold in others. How is one relevant and the other is not?

10. Don’t tell me how well your models predict the past. Tell me how many climate models have ever been created, since we started doing this sort of thing, and tell me how many have now been discarded because they didn’t predict correctly. If the answer is “All of the old ones failed and we were totally surprised because they were good at hindcasting,” then why would I trust the new ones?

11. When you claim the oceans have risen dramatically, you need to explain why insurance companies are ignoring this risk and why my local beaches look exactly the same to me. Also, when I Google this question, why are half of the top search results debunking the rise? How can I tell who is right? They all sound credible to me.

12. If you want me to believe warmer temperatures are bad, you need to produce a chart telling me how humankind thrived during various warmer and colder eras. Was warming usually good or usually bad?

You also need to convince me that economic models are accurate. Sure, we might have warming, but you have to run economic models to figure out how that affects things. And economic models are, as you know, usually worthless.

13. Stop conflating the basic science and the measurements with the models. Each has its own credibility. The basic science and even the measurements are credible. The models are less so. If you don’t make that distinction, I see the message as manipulation, not an honest transfer of knowledge.

14. If skeptics make you retreat to Pascal’s Wager as your main argument for aggressively responding the climate change, please understand that you lost the debate. The world is full of risks that might happen. We don’t treat all of them as real. And we can’t rank any of these risks to know how to allocate our capital to the best path. Should we put a trillion dollars into climate remediation or use that money for a missile defense system to better protect us from North Korea?

Anyway, to me it seems brutally wrong to call skeptics on climate science “anti-science” when all they want is for science to make its case in a way that doesn’t look exactly like a financial scam.* Is that asking a lot?

People ask me why I keep writing on this topic. My interest is the psychology around it, and the persuasion game on both sides. And it seems to me that climate scientists are the Hillary Clinton of scientists. They think facts and reason will persuade the public. Even though science knows that doesn’t generally work.

* Or a Chinese hoax. They look similar.

[RandomGuy]

11. When you claim the oceans have risen dramatically, you need to explain why insurance companies are ignoring this risk and why my local beaches look exactly the same to me. Also, when I Google this question, why are half of the top search results debunking the rise? How can I tell who is right? They all sound credible to me.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/23/munich...ter-insurance/



This Chart Shows Why Insurers Are Climate-Change Believers

This is the kind of mistake you make when you are not an expert.

Just about every company in the property and casualty insurance business carefully tracks climate data these days (the data for the chart below, for example, comes from Swiss Re). But this year's Fortune Change the World list recognizes one insurer that was far ahead of the pack: Germany's Munich Re (#13). The company, which provides both reinsurance and primary coverage, first warned about planetary weather changes in 1973 and founded its Geo Risks Research Department a year later to study the subject. Now it's a leader in insuring clean-fuel projects.

[RandomGuy]

In the interest of intellectual honesty:

The chart above must be viewed in the context of premium growth.

[boutons_deux]

In the interest of intellectual honesty:

The chart above must be viewed in the context of premium growth.

Also in the context of greatly increasing (re)construction in weather-vulnerable areas.

US govt insurance is $25B? in the hole because it won't charge premiums (that commercial insurance won't touch) that cover US govt insurance losses.

I'm sure the same people who object to paying for insurance that covers pregnancies don't care about paying for covering rich people, luxury hotels on the beach.

[spurraider21]

Oh shame on scientists for thinking facts and reason matter.

That entire post is cringeworthy and I could give a longer response later (though it will just be ignored and then another similar post will be copy pasted)... But it's ridiculous to demand an economic model and then follow that sentence with a statement that economic models are worthless and won't convince you of anything. And lol at squeezing in a religious objection to climate change