Global warming and politics

Non-car discussion, now for everyone
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

They get to Dr. Patrick Moore, who was interviewed on another youtube channel, which link I posted previously.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

Point 4: The AGW movement is effectively stifling development in 3rd world countries, because western environmentalists have told them, no, you can only have the most expensive and unreliable forms of electricity production (i.e. solar and wind). It's disgusting.
I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is this romanticizing of the peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved to the strongest force that there is to prevent development in the developing countries.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

Ok I finished it. That was well worth watching. Find an hour and 16 minutes (or break it up). Seriously. Unlike "other" forms of documentary, nothing in this was alarmist or sensational, or even emotional, except for pointing out that the IPCC is....I don't even have the words. A big pile of human garbage is all I can say.
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by bill25 »

Where's the research funding? Oh I know, because we can't tax the sun.
Super Freakanomics mentions creating a "soot cloud" to block the sun to cool the earth's average temp by a couple degrees per year. They cover this. You should read the couple chapters that talk about this and weather. Pretty interesting.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

That's fine, but I really don't think any action needs to be taken. We already regulate pollutants that have been shown to directly effect our health and have had good results with that. CO2 is not a pollutant and should not be regulated, period. I also don't think we have any kind of unprecedented out of control warming, nor do I think that the current warming is significantly caused by human activity (and no, 97% of all scientists don't agree - that is a complete fabrication). The data to support this is contained in this entire thread.

If the gov't and IPCC wanted an objective answer, they'd be open to debate and also fund research that doesn't already assume AGW is a thing that is happening. Since they are not, I know this is just wasteful nonsense, sham "science" and irresponsible alarmism. I predict we will pull out of it but only when they have concocted a story that leaves them unaccountable and this was all just a misunderstanding and here's the REAL place we need to dump billions, that attacks industrialized life and capitalism (which they "know" is bad). Until that happens, this will keep momentum.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

Current event:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog ... spartanntp

A few observations from the article: there was not one mention that this solar activity could possibly be related to the earth's climate. Not one. Also, some sketchy math as one commenter points out:
Happens every 11 years...last one in 2010...peaked in 2014...new math
Unusual behavior of the sun implies that this behavior was not predicted. Proof that they are wrong and they don't really know.
Sounds like more research is needed. But it's going to be an uphill battle when they are all sucking at the gov't funded teat for studies of that right rear wheel lug nut and how it is causing the car to run poorly.

And a super corny joke:
Kim Jong Un announced that he is sending a manned mission to land on the sun. When asked by reporters if that wasn't going to be too hot, he replied, "We have that worked out. We are going at night".
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

kevm14 wrote:Point 3 (around 29 minutes): It's the sun, stupid. Or, I should say, it's the clouds, stupid. I have never heard this specific explanation before and it is eye opening.

They show how a much better correlation than CO2 to global mean temperature, is solar activity. Everyone thinks of the sun as constant but it is entirely dynamic and there was a quote in this segment that went something like "we are essentially in the atmosphere of the sun," referring to solar wind and so on. This is great. Is it automatically correct because it's not CO2? No, but where's the conversation on this? Where's the research funding? Oh I know, because we can't tax the sun.
Here's the frame for CO2 vs sun activity as it relates to global mean temp.
sun CO2 and temp correlation.PNG
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_min ... umbers.png

This Maunder Minimum does correlate very closely with the so-called Little Ice Age.

And look at this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ic ... labels.svg

Take this graph and cut it down to 1800-2000 and you might be able to overlay that with atmospheric CO2. Once again, it seems like the sun's role here is vastly underplayed.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

Climate.gov took less than 3 minutes to conveniently debunk solar-driven warming.

https://www.climate.gov/teaching/resour ... ate-change

Something doesn't smell right. First, their conclusion about Troposphere warming directly conflicts with other data. Second, their climate models have been consistently wrong for like 20 years. So how can they keep selling this CO2 greenhouse thing with a straight face?
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following is her verbal remarks as delivered to last week's US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on "Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8

Here is the transcript:
https://www.corbettreport.com/climatolo ... roupthink/
I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.

Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.

I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.
I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.

What have I concluded from this assessment?

Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.

The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.

Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?

Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.

In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity – without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.

I would like to thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate science.

This concludes my testimony.
Emphasis mine.

Oh yeah, remember Climategate??
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

British climate alarmist recants his alarmism

http://www.qando.net/2012/04/24/british ... -alarmism/
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
Exactly.
Finally Lovelock admits that which has been painfully evident to most skeptics, given the trend of those 12 years – “we don’t know what the climate is doing.”

That is correct.  And until we do we need to quit trying to make economy killing policy based on what the evidence is currently telling us is a faulty theory.

Or said another way, we need to use actual science to drive policy, not pseudo-science that supports a political agenda.

I should be able to get consensus on that, no?
I said that previously.
Post Reply