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

[RandomGuy]

It's amusing watching Yoni fixate on the normalization of the data and handwaving at one iteration amongst literally thousands. Of course his spoonfed take does not examine the content of the datasets in question.

Waving your hands at a land temperature study and comparing it as an equivalent to surface area temperature studies is a nice touch I think. I demonstrates his ignorance and poor critical thinking skills clearly.

Looks like I wasn't the only one here who had the same thoughts. . (just read through the last page or so)

It was so easy for multiple people here to see the really obvious flaws with this.

Except for Yonivore. Who has gamely tried to defend someone who is either actively being deceitful, or too ignorant of how to support claims with sufficient evidence and logical reasoning.

I am going to walk my kids through this, it is so textbook pseudoscience hackery.

[Yonivore]

Things are going well. Signed up for Team Rubicon, and went down to Houston to muck out houses with my fellow vets. hard work, comraderie, and helping those who need it. Kids are well, getting good grades, and shaping up to be kind, thoughtful adults. Wife is awesomeness, job is gangbusters. Life is awesome.

Good to hear and good on you! Thank you for your service; both to the country and to Houston.

How are you doing? Howza kid? (seem to remember you had a newborn)

Have I been around that long? My last newborn is approaching drinking age.

But, I'm good. Busy. Thought I'd kick around in this swamp a little to see who is still hanging around.

If this is what you think "legitimate criticism" is, you have a very, very low bar.

One doesn't have to be a scientist to engage in critical thinking when reading this. The linked article provided some out of context charts of a single 30 year old study, and just asserted a bunch of things it never demonstrated.

This is exactly the kind of the OP of this thread was for. It is "flat-earther" level of reasoning.
.

See, this is the problem for us rubes, RG. The whole conversation seems to be unnecessarily complicated by the myriad of scientific conclusions forwarded and reached over the decades. It makes it appear it is the scientific community that is cherry-picking past data to fit a current narrative.

And, to be fair, if you will, there are scientists that disagree with the alarmists on the nature and cause of any experienced climate change.

I'm content to continue watching the politics of this issue thwart any significant transfer of wealth, in the name of global salvation. We can't keep Al Gore from building the most energy-inefficient mansion with his carbon credit dough but, hopefully, we can stop the rest of the world from impoverishing the United States for what is admittedly negligible benefits.

Then, there's the old adage, I'd rather be warm than cold on this planet.

I found this bit of irony amusing...

http://ins uteforenergyresearch.or...ns-reductions/

Frackers say you're welcome. If I recall, I was admonished in this very forum, some years back, (by scott - resident oil industry expert brew meister, if I'm not mistaken), fracking was a technology that was so far out in the future, and difficult to achieve, that it would never contribute significantly a solution.

I, on the other hand, offered fracking as one of the human innovations that always seems to surface when needed. I have no doubt, humans will similarly rise to the occasion before Miami or New York City are under water.

[boutons_deux]

I am going to walk my kids through this, it is so textbook pseudoscience hackery.

If their attention wanders, hit 'em with a "hockey stick"

and tell them they have less than a "Hail Mary Pass" of a chance of escaping the AGW storm.

[spurraider21]

Good to hear and good on you! Thank you for your service; both to the country and to Houston.


Have I been around that long? My last newborn is approaching drinking age.

But, I'm good. Busy. Thought I'd kick around in this swamp a little to see who is still hanging around.


See, this is the problem for us rubes, RG. The whole conversation seems to be unnecessarily complicated by the myriad of scientific conclusions forwarded and reached over the decades. It makes it appear it is the scientific community that is cherry-picking past data to fit a current narrative.

And, to be fair, if you will, there are scientists that disagree with the alarmists on the nature and cause of any experienced climate change.

I'm content to continue watching the politics of this issue thwart any significant transfer of wealth, in the name of global salvation. We can't keep Al Gore from building the most energy-inefficient mansion with his carbon credit dough but, hopefully, we can stop the rest of the world from impoverishing the United States for what is admittedly negligible benefits.

Then, there's the old adage, I'd rather be warm than cold on this planet.

I found this bit of irony amusing...

http://ins uteforenergyresearch.or...ns-reductions/

Frackers say you're welcome. If I recall, I was admonished in this very forum, some years back, (by scott - resident oil industry expert brew meister, if I'm not mistaken), fracking was a technology that was so far out in the future, and difficult to achieve, that it would never contribute significantly a solution.

I, on the other hand, offered fracking as one of the human innovations that always seems to surface when needed. I have no doubt, humans will similarly rise to the occasion before Miami or New York City are under water.

The inability to separate the scientific discussion from the political ramifications is the biggest part of the problem imo. Climate change theory isn't inherently liberal or conservative, but it's treated that

[Yonivore]

Furthermore, RG; the way I see it, you're no better than Michael Mann and I'm no worse than Judith Curry -- both of whom are distinguished climate scientists (Mann's attack on Curry notwithstanding) on opposites sides of the debate.

We decide who we trust based on our understanding of the reasonableness of their arguments.

I'm not a climate scientist and neither are you (as far as I know). You've been convinced AGCC is of an extent that we should engage in extraordinary measures to address it. I have not. But, we both reach those conclusions based on the work and words of others.

I believe the skeptics are more reasonable.

The "Craziness" of the Climate Science Echo Chamber

[Yonivore]

The inability to separate the scientific discussion from the political ramifications is the biggest part of the problem imo. Climate change theory isn't inherently liberal or conservative, but it's treated that

Nor is the current scientific orthodoxy on climate change necessarily correct, spurraider21.

In fact, if those advancing the catastrophic view of AGCC weren't so political in their demands that the planet kneel to their "consensus" and spend trillions combating an issue that may not be as bad as they claim, there probably wouldn't be as many skeptics so adamantly opposing the view.

You see, we've lived through these Henny Penny sky-is-falling predictions before; on global cooling, global population, global droughts, etc... Maybe the "scientific" community has cried Wolf one to many times.

[RandomGuy]

Furthermore, RG; the way I see it, you're no better than Michael Mann and I'm no worse than Judith Curry -- both of whom are distinguished climate scientists (Mann's attack on Curry notwithstanding) on opposites sides of the debate.

We decide who we trust based on our understanding of the reasonableness of their arguments.

I'm not a climate scientist and neither are you (as far as I know). You've been convinced AGCC is of an extent that we should engage in extraordinary measures to address it. I have not. But, we both reach those conclusions based on the work and words of others.

I believe the skeptics are more reasonable.

The "Craziness" of the Climate Science Echo Chamber

That is absolutely wrong.

We don't have to take any kind of hugely radical measures to combat it.

Further, our economy would actively benefit from a lot of the things that would decrease CO2 emissions. Not doing those things hurts the economy in the long run.

A cap and trade scheme is the best free-market solution, or plain old carbon tax would simply add economic incentives to do the things we need to do. Free markets and innovation would take care of the rest.

I have asked economic damage alarmists for years how they know limiting CO2 is bad for the economy, and they have consistently failed to show anything even approaching data.

Risk here has more than one dimension, and you can quibble about the science of cigarettes causing cancer all you want, but you can't show me that smoking causes people to be better off economically.

You just... can't.
.

[spurraider21]

Nor is the current scientific orthodoxy on climate change necessarily correct, spurraider21.

In fact, if those advancing the catastrophic view of AGCC weren't so political in their demands that the planet kneel to their "consensus" and spend trillions combating an issue that may not be as bad as they claim, there probably wouldn't be as many skeptics so adamantly opposing the view.

You see, we've lived through these Henny Penny sky-is-falling predictions before; on global cooling, global population, global droughts, etc... Maybe the "scientific" community has cried Wolf one to many times.

Global cooling was never the scientific consensus. That's just being lazy, yoni.

The disagreement on "where do we go from here" is one thing. It's understandable. The "it's not even really happening" stuff is what is more troublesome.

How did scientists do with the o-zone/cfc stuff? They were spot on.

[boutons_deux]

no wolf crying

the oligarchy has succeeded (eg Exxon suppressing its own scientists' AGW CO2 warning 40 ing years ago) in hiring enough scientists, as has all the BigCorp oligarchy, to protect their profits, no matter the costs to the planet, to people.

extreme weather variation from AGW was a prediction from 35 years ago, came true.

melting land ice/rising sea level from AGW was a prediction, came true

cry wolf ? G F Y

the natural earth should be entering a cooling phase, but the anthropocene/AGW earth is heating up rapidly.

[RandomGuy]

Nor is the current scientific orthodoxy on climate change necessarily correct, spurraider21.

In fact, if those advancing the catastrophic view of AGCC weren't so political in their demands that the planet kneel to their "consensus" and spend trillions combating an issue that may not be as bad as they claim, there probably wouldn't be as many skeptics so adamantly opposing the view.

You see, we've lived through these Henny Penny sky-is-falling predictions before; on global cooling, global population, global droughts, etc... Maybe the "scientific" community has cried Wolf one to many times.

"Science thought the earth was flat before, so I will just keep thinking X".

smh

You do realize this is ty reasoning, right?

[Yonivore]

That is absolutely wrong.

We don't have to take any kind of hugely radical measures to combat it.

Obviously, our political betters disagree...

Obama's Paris Agreement: All Cost and No Benefit for the U.S.

An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto
Protocol

Further, our economy would actively benefit from a lot of the things that would decrease CO2 emissions. Not doing those things hurts the economy in the long run.

Then, the economy -- not the government -- should be allowed to adjust to those realities.

A cap and trade scheme is the best free-market solution, or plain old carbon tax would simply add economic incentives to do the things we need to do.

I have asked economic damage alarmists for years how they know limiting CO2 is bad for the economy, and they have consistently failed to show anything even approaching data.

I don't think it's the limiting CO2 that's the issue. It's the way governments want to impose economic re ation to attempt that goal that's at issue.

Risk here has more than one dimension, and you can quibble about the science of cigarettes causing cancer all you want, but you can't show me that smoking causes people to be better off economically.

You just... can't.
.

Not sure I understand the analogy.

[Yonivore]

"Science thought the earth was flat before, so I will just keep thinking X".

smh

You do realize this is ty reasoning, right?

And, currently, there is scientific disagreement over the cause, extent, and impact of AGCC. Your point? That we blindly follow the current orthodoxy, even in the face of reasonable disagreement?

You see, while it can be definitively proven the Earth is round, the same cannot be said of the causes, extent, or impact of AGCC -- or if man or CO2 even have a significant impact on the manner in which climate changes.

[spurraider21]

And, currently, there is scientific disagreement over the cause, extent, and impact of AGCC. Your point? That we blindly follow the current orthodoxy, even in the face of reasonable disagreement?

You see, while it can be definitively proven the Earth is round, the same cannot be said of the causes, extent, or impact of AGCC -- or if man or CO2 even have a significant impact on the manner in which climate changes.

Sure. It can definitively be proven that the earth has been warming and the recent warming has coincided with increased CO2 emissions. It can be proven that CO2 carries greenhouse gas characteristics. It can be proven that solar luminosity has been dipping during the most recent warming.

Consider each fact a puzzle pieces. I can look at a puzzle piece and know exactly what that piece looks like. The theory is the overarching explanation that is exclusively consistent with all of thr puzzle pieces.. ie a prediction on what the puzzles final image will be. If your pieces are a cat ear, a cat paw, and a cat tail, it's a solid conclusion and theory that the puzzle is a cat, even though it hasn't been "proven"

[Yonivore]

Sure. It can definitively be proven that the earth has been warming and the recent warming has coincided with increased CO2 emissions. It can be proven that CO2 carries greenhouse gas characteristics. It can be proven that solar luminosity has been dipping during the most recent warming.

Consider each fact a puzzle pieces. I can look at a puzzle piece and know exactly what that piece looks like. The theory is the overarching explanation that is exclusively consistent with all of thr puzzle pieces.. ie a prediction on what the puzzles final image will be. If your pieces are a cat ear, a cat paw, and a cat tail, it's a solid conclusion and theory that the puzzle is a cat, even though it hasn't been "proven"

Has warning tracked CO2 levels?

I seem to recall the scientific community struggling to explain a decade-long hiatus in warming, even with increasing levels of CO2. Ill grant you this, it’s a puzzle.

Unlike, of course, the shape of the Earth, which can be explained and demonstrated simply.

[spurraider21]

Has warning tracked CO2 levels?

I seem to recall the scientific community struggling to explain a decade-long hiatus in warming, even with increasing levels of CO2. Ill grant you this, it’s a puzzle.

Unlike, of course, the shape of the Earth, which can be explained and demonstrated simply.

Yes. There are facts and there are theories which act as explanations for those facts and provide us with a means of making useful predictions.

The scientific community doesn't have any issues with the time period between 1998 and 2008 if that's what you're alluding to. 1998 was an extreme el nino event which caused an abberation in the record. Other than that it's a simple matter of cherry picking starting points to fit a narrative

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yoni trying to pander the idea that there is a disagreement in the scientific community about AGW.

He just does not want policy changes to hurt his oilco overlords.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes. There are facts and there are theories which act as explanations for those facts and provide us with a means of making useful predictions.

The scientific community doesn't have any issues with the time period between 1998 and 2008 if that's what you're alluding to. 1998 was an extreme el nino event which caused an abberation in the record. Other than that it's a simple matter of cherry picking starting points to fit a narrative

You can bet that they are going to use last years EN to origin graphs in the decade to come. Darrin and Yoni sure liked to post the ones that started from 98 and 02 in peddling their pause.

[DarrinS]

You can bet that they are going to use last years EN to origin graphs in the decade to come. Darrin and Yoni sure liked to post the ones that started from 98 and 02 in peddling their pause.

*rent

[DarrinS]

Lol, “peddling their pause”

[FuzzyLumpkins]

*rent

Your pseudoscience hackery being remarkable is nothing to be proud of, sophist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol, “peddling their pause”

You spammed that graph twice a week. Yes peddling your pause, sophist.

[DarrinS]

sophist

I’m hurt

[spurraider21]

yeah... take the peak at 1998 and draw a horizontal line across and say "lol no warming for 10 years"

so clever. alarmists cant explain it

[boutons_deux]

Did somebody say "population"?

Scientists: Population Growth “Primary Driver Behind Ecological and Societal Threats”

15,364 scientists from 180 countries have put their names to a BioScience journal articlecalling for population growth to be limited, and governments to stop only focusing on economic growth.

the 1992 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” (see supplemental file S1). These concerned professionals called on humankind to curtail environmental destruction and cautioned that “a great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.” In their manifesto, they showed that humans were on a collision course with the natural world…

The authors of the 1992 declaration feared that humanity was pushing Earth’s ecosystems beyond their capacities to support the web of life.

They described how we are fast approaching many of the limits of what the *biosphere can tolerate without *substantial and irreversible harm. The scientists pleaded that we stabilize the human population, describing how our large numbers—swelled by another 2 billion people since 1992, a 35 percent increase—exert stresses on Earth that can overwhelm other efforts to realize a sustainable future…

Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer,

humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse…




The federal government’s State of the Environment 2016 report (prepared by a group of independent experts, which I chaired), released today, predicts that

population growth and economic development will be the main drivers of environmental problems such as land-use change, habitat destruction, invasive species, and climate change…

We continue to lose agricultural lands through urban encroachment.

Over the past five years land-clearing rates stabilised in all states and territories except Queensland, where the rate of clearing increased.

Coastal waterways are threatened by pollutants, including microplastics and nanoparticles…

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017...l-threats.html

[boutons_deux]

Educated Republicans Are Less Likely to Believe in Climate Change

When it comes to belief in climate change, political iden y—not education—matters most.





scientific knowledge may facilitate defending positions motivated by nonscientific concerns."

https://www.alternet.org/environment/educated-republicans-are-less-likely-believe-climate-change