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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What economic damage?

I'd like to see that quantified.

Here is the risk of nonaction quantified:

Because of climate change, “insurers are facing higher property and casualty insurance losses, which ultimately leads to higher costs to consumers and businesses,” the report notes. “Climate change and a rise in extreme weather-related events could increase losses in the future.”

Global mean surface temperatures have gone up by 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1951. The American Academy of Actuaries report put the total number of global natural loss events in 2014 at 980 with overall losses estimated at $110 billion. They claimed 7,700 lives. In 2014, from May 18-23, severe storms did $2.9 billion damage; severe winter damage, $1.7 billion from Jan. 5-8; and severe warmer weather damage from June 3-5, $1.3 billion.

Seven of the 10 warmest years on record in the contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1990, and the fraction of global land experiencing blistering summer temperatures has risen 10-fold in the last 50 years.

North America is particularly threatened by climate change: “Over the past three decades, the number of weather-related loss events in North America grew by a factor of five, according to a 2012 report by Munich Re. This compares with a four-fold increase in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, two in Europe, and 1.5 in South America. North America faces every type of hazardous weather risk — hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, flood, wildfire and storms, according to the report. One

reason is that no east-west mountain range exists in North America to prevent southern warm air from colliding with cold Canadian weather fronts.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that number of weather-related events with losses exceeding $1 billion nearly doubled, rising from 80 between 2004 and 2013 compared with only 46 events in the previous decade.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/op...e18690846.html

[RandomGuy]

Sure. Intentional cherry-picking is dishonest.

I just did.

Now, is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable?

So we can now establish that intentional cherry-picking is dishonest.

Imagine, my surprise, when out of the thousands of climate scientists, you picked one as more credible than all the others. "skeptics are more credible than alarmists".

I have gone through through all sorts of "skeptical" websites over the years, and they have, very consistently and obviously deliberately cherry picked.

If people who call themselves "skeptics" consistently present data in an obviously dishonest way, I am going to be deeply skeptical of their claims and assertions.

So, we have, on one side, a large group of scientists who have a fairly consistent message about their field, and on the other, a group who lie through their teeth on a consistent basis, and need ing moronic partisan pedo-defending hacks, like YOU to make their case with some weak sauce arguments.

Honestly, I think I am done responding to you here. You disgust me, deeply. Please off. I am tired of being lied to.

[DarrinS]

Damn, RG triggered

[RandomGuy]

Here is the risk of nonaction quantified:

Because of climate change, “insurers are facing higher property and casualty insurance losses, which ultimately leads to higher costs to consumers and businesses,” the report notes. “Climate change and a rise in extreme weather-related events could increase losses in the future.”

Global mean surface temperatures have gone up by 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1951. The American Academy of Actuaries report put the total number of global natural loss events in 2014 at 980 with overall losses estimated at $110 billion. They claimed 7,700 lives. In 2014, from May 18-23, severe storms did $2.9 billion damage; severe winter damage, $1.7 billion from Jan. 5-8; and severe warmer weather damage from June 3-5, $1.3 billion.

Seven of the 10 warmest years on record in the contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1990, and the fraction of global land experiencing blistering summer temperatures has risen 10-fold in the last 50 years.

North America is particularly threatened by climate change: “Over the past three decades, the number of weather-related loss events in North America grew by a factor of five, according to a 2012 report by Munich Re. This compares with a four-fold increase in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, two in Europe, and 1.5 in South America. North America faces every type of hazardous weather risk — hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, flood, wildfire and storms, according to the report. One

reason is that no east-west mountain range exists in North America to prevent southern warm air from colliding with cold Canadian weather fronts.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that number of weather-related events with losses exceeding $1 billion nearly doubled, rising from 80 between 2004 and 2013 compared with only 46 events in the previous decade.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/op...e18690846.html

The cost of these disasters is borne out by reinsurers. (who take the catastrophic parts of risks on property and casualty policies)

It is their business. They have hundreds of billions of dollars, and their existence at stake.

ing moronic partisan pedo-defending hacks love to point out increased development as the driver of increased losses, while down playing climate change.

Munich Re doesn't give a about their feelings. They have too much money at stake for dishonest arguments.

They say:
Yeah, we're driving climate change.
It's getting worse.
The trend line indicates it will continue to get worse.

What scares me the most is potential feedback loops that this warming my trigger, such as thawing permafrost releasing more greenhouse gases, or crystalline methane on sea floors.

The analogy I have read best is a light switch, you can gently increase the pressure on the switch without flipping it, but at some point, it flips and turns on whatever process it controls.

The conservative approach to risk dictates you don't go around pushing buttons on a complex machine you don't understand. That is a recipe for disaster.

What I find funny is people who would call themselves "conservative" are so liberal with risk.

Especially when there is a lot of economic benefit to limiting CO2 emissions. If someone says "it costs too much" but never tells you any information about the benefits, that is a time to be skeptical.

[RandomGuy]

Damn, RG triggered

Sure. Someone placing party and defending a child predator will piss me off. Sue me.

Do you think your political party should defend child-predators in their ranks?

[boutons_deux]

NASA develops tool that shows how much sea level rise coastal cities can expect based on location and degree of ice melt




https://phys.org/news/2017-11-nasa-t...al-cities.html

" " like this is exactly why the Repugs are gutting NASA's budget.

[DarrinS]

Blasphemers

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/...-cloud-studies

[RandomGuy]

Blasphemers

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/...-cloud-studies

Do you think your political party should defend child-predators in their ranks? Just curious.

[DarrinS]

Do you think your political party should defend child-predators in their ranks? Just curious.

No one should defend sexual predators -- or marry them (ahem).

[RandomGuy]

No one should defend sexual predators -- or marry them (ahem).

So what do you think it say about a political party when many in that party do just that? "pedophile over [other party candidate]"

[Yonivore]

So we can now establish that intentional cherry-picking is dishonest.

Imagine, my surprise, when out of the thousands of climate scientists, you picked one as more credible than all the others. "skeptics are more credible than alarmists".

I have gone through through all sorts of "skeptical" websites over the years, and they have, very consistently and obviously deliberately cherry picked.

If people who call themselves "skeptics" consistently present data in an obviously dishonest way, I am going to be deeply skeptical of their claims and assertions.

So, we have, on one side, a large group of scientists who have a fairly consistent message about their field, and on the other, a group who lie through their teeth on a consistent basis, and need ing moronic partisan pedo-defending hacks, like YOU to make their case with some weak sauce arguments.

Honestly, I think I am done responding to you here. You disgust me, deeply. Please off. I am tired of being lied to.

Before you go, could you do me the courtesy of answering my question?

Is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable?

[RandomGuy]

Before you go, could you do me the courtesy of answering my question?

Is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable?

Her critiques are more technical that I have the expertise, time, or interest to really evaluate as reasonable or not.

But to keep it simple:
Yes.

I have to weigh them against the bulk of the evidence and consensus. I think it is far from the reasonable definition of "significant" that you are so desperate to muddy the subject with.

It's almost as if you selected, or PICKED, one expert out of an entire field to attempt to play up the controversy. A tactic similar to that of creationists who want to "teach the controversy".

Dishonest to the last. smh

[Yonivore]

Her critiques are more technical that I have the expertise, time, or interest to really evaluate as reasonable or not.

But to keep it simple:
Yes.

Okay. But, your suggestion that you lack the expertise to adequately evaluate her position is telling and speaks to my criticism that, in fact, climate science is a difficult and complex issue over which there is much disagreement. The science isn't settled.

I have to weigh them against the bulk of the evidence and consensus. I think it is far from the reasonable definition of "significant" that you are so desperate to muddy the subject with.

Given her credentials and previous position in the climate community, I disagree. Besides, she was just an example. There are others, with similar backgrounds, that hold varying versions of her skeptical position.

It's almost as if you selected, or PICKED, one expert out of an entire field to attempt to play up the controversy. A tactic similar to that of creationists who want to "teach the controversy".

Dishonest to the last. smh

I picked her BECAUSE of her background in climate science as an example of someone with heft that has an position that is different than the one to which you ascribe.

[RandomGuy]

Okay. But, your suggestion that you lack the expertise to adequately evaluate her position is telling and speaks to my criticism that, in fact, climate science is a difficult and complex issue over which there is much disagreement. The science isn't settled.

Given her credentials and previous position in the climate community, I disagree. Besides, she was just an example. There are others, with similar backgrounds, that hold varying versions of her skeptical position.

I picked her BECAUSE of her background in climate science as an example of someone with heft that has an position that is different than the one to which you ascribe.

If you have a scientist who makes the case, you should show some peer-reviewed research on the subject. Just a suggestion. That is how science works.
.

[RandomGuy]

As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction. Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate

Judith Curry has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[17] Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review

It doesn't take much to moderate, or even reduce Co2 emissions. The economic alarmists who claim vast economic damage from reductions in CO2 emissions have never made their case.

[RandomGuy]

The conservative approach to risk dictates you don't go around pushing buttons on a complex machine you don't understand. That is a recipe for disaster.

[Yonivore]

If you have a scientist who makes the case, you should show some peer-reviewed research on the subject. Just a suggestion. That is how science works.
.

Judith Curry makes the case for being skeptical. To paraphrase you, I have neither the expertise nor time to do what you suggest. Therefore, I give you Judith Curry to make my argument for me. Argue with her.

By the way, if you think what's done in this forum is scientific discovery, i feel bad for you. This forum lives up to its name, its all political, all the time.

[Yonivore]

It doesn't take much to moderate, or even reduce Co2 emissions. The economic alarmists who claim vast economic damage from reductions in CO2 emissions have never made their case.

I would suggest if it wasn't economically onerous, there wouldn't be so much opposition. And those arguing something needs to be done haven't made their case, either.

[RandomGuy]

I would suggest if it wasn't economically onerous, there wouldn't be so much opposition. And those arguing something needs to be done haven't made their case, either.

People used to be scared of black cats, think demons would enter your mouth while you yawned, and had much opposition to women who were thought to be witches. I would suggest you are assuming "so much opposition" is rational, without evidence.

I would also suggest you read up on economic self-interest to understand why that is. People with diffuse interests in it, that would benefit overall, i.e. 300,000,000 people in the country will never complain more than the people who would lose out most intensely, even when the overall economy has a net gain. In this case, multi-trillion dollar industry with money to burn making useful idiots think there is way more controversy than there actually is.

Those arguing that we take a liberal approach to risk haven't made their case, either. I am very conservative when it comes to accepting risk with catastrophic potential consequences.

You can make the same argument for protectionist trade policies. If free trade weren't so economically onerous, there wouldn't be so much opposition.

. I did it again. I took your dishonest arguments at face value.

You don't care about the truth, only telling just enough of it, to make your viewpoint seem reasonable. You really do disgust me. Ick.

[RandomGuy]

By the way, if you think what's done in this forum is scientific discovery,

I don't. Just to be clear.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

People used to be scared of black cats, think demons would enter your mouth while you yawned, and had much opposition to women who were thought to be witches. I would suggest you are assuming "so much opposition" is rational, without evidence.

I would also suggest you read up on economic self-interest to understand why that is. People with diffuse interests in it, that would benefit overall, i.e. 300,000,000 people in the country will never complain more than the people who would lose out most intensely, even when the overall economy has a net gain. In this case, multi-trillion dollar industry with money to burn making useful idiots think there is way more controversy than there actually is.

Those arguing that we take a liberal approach to risk haven't made their case, either. I am very conservative when it comes to accepting risk with catastrophic potential consequences.

You can make the same argument for protectionist trade policies. If free trade weren't so economically onerous, there wouldn't be so much opposition.

. I did it again. I took your dishonest arguments at face value.

You don't care about the truth, only telling just enough of it, to make your viewpoint seem reasonable. You really do disgust me. Ick.

Citizen's United is the 500 lbs gorilla in this particular train of thought. The rallies, advertising, and political donations have been well do ented in this thread.

BTW, Curry is a paid forecaster for fossil fuel companies and she uses a lot of the typical debunked arguments like the pause and models not being perfect as valid denunciations. The mistake you are making with Yoni is allowing him to dictate the argument when his premise is garbage. The argument should be what Curry's arguments actually are not this beating around the bush where the bush is trying to feed her credibility obliquely.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The cost of these disasters is borne out by reinsurers. (who take the catastrophic parts of risks on property and casualty policies)

It is their business. They have hundreds of billions of dollars, and their existence at stake.

ing moronic partisan pedo-defending hacks love to point out increased development as the driver of increased losses, while down playing climate change.

Munich Re doesn't give a about their feelings. They have too much money at stake for dishonest arguments.

They say:
Yeah, we're driving climate change.
It's getting worse.
The trend line indicates it will continue to get worse.

What scares me the most is potential feedback loops that this warming my trigger, such as thawing permafrost releasing more greenhouse gases, or crystalline methane on sea floors.

The analogy I have read best is a light switch, you can gently increase the pressure on the switch without flipping it, but at some point, it flips and turns on whatever process it controls.

The conservative approach to risk dictates you don't go around pushing buttons on a complex machine you don't understand. That is a recipe for disaster.

What I find funny is people who would call themselves "conservative" are so liberal with risk.

Especially when there is a lot of economic benefit to limiting CO2 emissions. If someone says "it costs too much" but never tells you any information about the benefits, that is a time to be skeptical.

Or the increasing populations that cannot afford insurance. I have family in Houston and they decided not to pay for flood insurance because of cost and misleading temporal tags on flood plains. When 100 year floods happened within a dozen years time its time to reevaluate that decision.

My fam got lucky but many obviously did not. You know that very well considering your philanthropy.

Bottomline is that risk exposure and hazard indices are increasing at a rate that far outstrips what should be expected given growth in population or economics. 5 times as much in 20 years.

[RandomGuy]

Or the increasing populations that cannot afford insurance. I have family in Houston and they decided not to pay for flood insurance because of cost and misleading temporal tags on flood plains. When 100 year floods happened within a dozen years time its time to reevaluate that decision.

My fam got lucky but many obviously did not. You know that very well considering your philanthropy.

Bottomline is that risk exposure and hazard indices are increasing at a rate that far outstrips what should be expected given growth in population or economics. 5 times as much in 20 years.

Bottom line indeed.

A bottom line that will be ignored by people who have bought into the economic alarmism and deviate from prudent conservatives risk management principles.

[RandomGuy]

Citizen's United is the 500 lbs gorilla in this particular train of thought. The rallies, advertising, and political donations have been well do ented in this thread.

BTW, Curry is a paid forecaster for fossil fuel companies and she uses a lot of the typical debunked arguments like the pause and models not being perfect as valid denunciations. The mistake you are making with Yoni is allowing him to dictate the argument when his premise is garbage. The argument should be what Curry's arguments actually are not this beating around the bush where the bush is trying to feed her credibility obliquely.

Curry makes some modestly valid points. Data should be as transparent as possible.

If one digs, these are her primary criticisms. Very mild ones at that. Yoni's advancement of her is dishonest on its face, because he is attempting to create "significant" scientific disagreement, with some very thin broth. Essentially cherry-picking one expert in a field of thousands, something he himself admits is dishonest.
.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Curry makes some modestly valid points. Data should be as transparent as possible.

If one digs, these are her primary criticisms. Very mild ones at that. Yoni's advancement of her is dishonest on its face, because he is attempting to create "significant" scientific disagreement, with some very thin broth. Essentially cherry-picking one expert in a field of thousands, something he himself admits is dishonest.
.

The data normalization is posted publicly. The NOAA stuff that WC likes to handwave at certainly is.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access