"UN scientists warn time running out to tackle global warming" Topic

I think the quotes got a bit mixed up there.

I didn't read many of your links.

Again you are mistaken. I never claimed it has nothing to do with it. I've never claimed that it is not having any effect.

Well, you are constantly criticizing it, and again, you used the argument:

the climate is changing. It always has, it always will. There were massive changes in the climate throughout history when man was not contributing greenhouse gasses.

That is a standard refrain of global warming deniers, or rather, people who insist that humankind has nothing to do with it.

If I have someone in front of me reciting the Apostles' or Nicene creed from memory, I know s/he is a Christian.

I think your approach here, while at the same time showing obvious pleasure over bad corrections, is extremely passive-aggressive behaviour. You keep posting and reciting the very same creed of the climate change deniers continually with great vigour and at the same time wink and say "I didn't say I that".

It's like one of these cowboy movies where some guy with a gun, we'll call him Deputy JJ, is firing his pistol at the dirt all around a particular person who we'll call Smurf. The noise awakens the sherrif from his nap. He rushes out onto the jail house veranda and barks, "cut it out, deputy, stop shooting at Smurf". Deputy JJ looks up with a look of feigned offence and explains, "Sherrif, I'm not shooting at Smurf, how do you come to the conclusion I'm shooting at him? Show me how I'm shooting at Smurf!"

Buck buck.
--
Tim

Tim, whether that is a standard refrain or not, it doesn't change the fact that I qualify the statement. Nor does it invalidate my posts where the link (which you often don't read) similarly acknowledges warming. Read the Duke link. Read the two short other links just a bit earlier today where they are both posted up front.

I find it remarkable that you fixate on a phrase, but ignore the links I post that if you did read them would paint an entirely different picture.

If I have someone in front of me reciting the Apostles' or Nicene creed from memory, I know s/he is a Christian

But perhaps not if they add significant caveats to it. That is what I have consistently done.

I do take joy in pointing out the nonsense, lies and hypocrisy. For folks who supposedly know that of which they speak, we get a continual and reliable pile of crap that the believers simply pretend was never said, and if it was, they didn't mean it, and if they meant it it doesn't matter. Why not? These are the same people we are supposed to believe and trust. And they are not trustworthy. Disagree? Explain away Hansen. Or the IPCC record carbon footprint offset by the existing trees. Or the fact they need clarity to know their carbon footprint is unacceptable.

On what basis should we believe them?

On what basis should we believe their crap models?

You can post till the cows come home about why you are certain about me, but it doesn't change their unacceptable judgment or lies.

You can insist all you want but doing so without at least reading a few specific links I specifically ask you to do is at least disappointing, and possibly an intentional avoidance because what you'd learn doesn't match my evil adjectives or your preconceived notions.

So, again, I'll ask that you read the three short links and move the conversation along.

Thanks,

JJ

Well lets look at there track record first and see what they can actually get right.

Things that did not happen.
Nuclear War Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
The Y2K Bug
The Impending Ice Age
Worldwide famine in the 1970s and 80s
Running out of Oil
Iran getting Nukes
End of the world in 2012
H1N1
Ebola
SARS
and loads of other pandemics

So far looks to me like there batting a total zero on the prediction success chart.

Nobody predicted nuclear war they fared it. And thanks to alot of work it didn't happen, so a success.

Y2k and ice age is popular media, nothing to do with science

Famine, was prevented by science because of new hugh yeald crops, again success story.

We are running out of oil, but new finds extended the period by 50-100 years.

diplomatic success prevented iran from getting nukes.

Only idiots belived 2012

SARS and H1N1 was prevented from becoming pandemics through modern medicine and trained doctors. Nobody said ebola would become a pandemic, except right wingers in europe and usa, as an excuse to be even more racist. In fact all health personel, said to calm the down, and they had it under ccontrol.

So from that list only oil was a clear miss the others are either conspericy theories, crackpot ideas, or success stories about modern science and diplomacy.

There were many who predicted that we were on the brink of a nuclear war, not specifically that it would happen. Here are five times we came close. The doomsday clock is a predictor of how close we are to a potential nuclear war. Similarly predictive. +1 Napthyme

Y2K had to do with the science involved with all of the computers systems and other technology that was not built to handle the change of century dating. Massive examinations, evaluations efforts and dollars were spent worldwide to preclude the predicted problems from happening – not a media event
+1 Napthyme

The impending ice age was predicted by scientists a few decades ago – not the media, scientist. These notably included one of the biggest and most public and loud voices on global warming, James "I bet on odd and it came up even, so now I'm betting even" Jansen. It may have been based on crap science, but it was done by scientists. Therefore it did have to do with science – or at least the version practiced by James "we've already passed the tipping point" Hansen.
+1 Napthyme

Science may have provided for the new yield crops, but there were extensive:
link
link

See also note 13 in the first one and 18 in the second one which is also an ice age prediction.

+1 Napthyme.

We may have found new oil, but the scientists were pretty adamant at the time about running out, and not wise enough to realize the probability of additional finds and improved methods for extraction.

+1 Napthyme.

A little early to proclaim "diplomatic success prevented iran from getting nukes." when the diplomats involved have gone from "Iran cannot get a bomb, Iran must not get a bomb, I will not permit Iran to get a bomb" to the current version of Well, OK under the agreement as it is framed, they'll have a bomb in about ten years and the same folks stating categorically that the pathway to Iran having a nuclear weapon has already been paved.

We'll call it a draw for now.

Mayan Calendar predicts 2012 end of world. Yep. Just the loons.
+1 Gunfreak

Ebola?

. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a report, in late September, projecting that under the worst-case scenario there could be 1.4 million cases by early next year. The World Health Organization said Tuesday that new cases could rise to 10,000 per week by December, ten times the rate of the previous month. And the World Bank has warned that costs of the epidemic could reach $32.6 USD billion, which would be an economic catastrophe for the three West African countries that would compound their health catastrophes.

Will the epidemic spread more widely, igniting outbreaks in other parts of the world? We hope not. Will it turn up as additional cases, here and there, among people who have traveled from West Africa unaware, as Thomas Eric Duncan was reportedly unaware, that they were infected before boarding the airplane? Probably.

link

The UN addressed it as a pandemic
link
link

Nobody said ebola would become a pandemic, except right wingers in europe and usa, as an excuse to be even more racist

Oh, and the U.N. You have an axe to grind and chose to do so whether the facts match or not. Get over it.

Or are you calling the UN racist right wingers?

+1 Napthyme.

So, based on the evidence it is a pretty clear win, Napthyme 6 Gunfreak 1

So from that list only oil was a clear miss the others are either conspericy theories, crackpot ideas, or success stories about modern science and diplomacy.

And once again the facts prove you misinformed and overly judgmental. Do some research, eh?

You guys do realize that:

A: None of you will ever convince the other person of anything.

B: Regardless of what any of you believe, reality is what it is.

Right?

Weasel,

Yep. Tim said and I concurred that

we are buck bucking endlessly like chickens in a different hen houses (aka topics) over this subject? grin

But I've listed a lot of reality with which the other side does not agree, yet they are unable to refute it. Happy to laundry list it if you like. But there is a lot of reality they just will not accept, even when the IPCC itself is the source.

I just like mocking the "settled science" crowd who are certain they have all the answers, yet who make ridiculous statements and claims, as well as their actions, which indicate that they don't even take their own dire warnings seriously enough to do anything about it.

Hypocritical liars using busted models to wrongly predict the future is no basis on which to form policy, especially when the desired policy is fatally flawed for the reasons I have posted previously a number of times.

JJ

BTW, an interesting read on how a nuclear war might break out even now between Russia and the West:

link

@Gunfreak

I know a man who was a US boarder guard during the cold war in West Germany on the boarder between it and East Germany. He will tell you that WWIII was not a fear but a certainty and that his life expectancy at that point was about 45 secs after the first explosion.

As someone who owned an Amiga 500 computer during Y2K and no internet to download a patch to the Op system it was a very real worry. Especially once the company went under.

Iran never got any nukes simply because they did not want any, otherwise they would have gotten them after the fall of the USSR. it was all fear porn and still is today.

Oil will never run out because it is not made from dead animals like coal is. It is produced by the planet.

pandemics were never stopped by any kind of modern medicine. It is all fear porn to sell there vaccines.

When it comes to "global warming" or should we call it what it really is and say global engineering instead. You need to look at who will profit from said programs? Definitely not us in any way shape or form. and who is touting this fine piece of "computer modeling"??? The ones who will make billions off the "climate change" solutions.

Its all more fear porn.

Napthyme, most of that is , so ill only correct 1 thing that are so insanely stupid.

First coal is not from dead animals, but huge forests that coverd the earth some 350 million years ago

But that was not the stupid part, I'm guessing you belive in abiotic oil theory, invented by the Russians…

That statement alone disqualifies you from ever beeing taken seriously again in any descussion on this forum.

Gunfreak, your biases and prejudice has long ago disqualified you from being taken seriously on anything other than dogs and gaming.

Just look at my refutation of your claims above. Wrong six out of eight times, with one of the two remaining being a draw. And that was generous as what you claim isn't true. Care to dispute the others? Good luck with that!

You didn't refute anything.

Not sure how you can claim that with the evidence I presented. Are you claiming the UN is made up of right wing racists? that's who you claimed were the only folks who predicted ebola would become a pandemic – yet the UN referred to it as just that.

Sounds like a refutation to me.

You claimed Y2K was a media event. yet it was a real concern from a computer standpoint with billions being spent around the world to patch the softwares in question to deal with it.
link

link

Sounds like a refutation to me.

The ice age prediction was made by scientists and was widely reported as such
link

link

Hardly a media event either.

Sounds like a refutation to me.

I could go on but I've made my point. If you can't even follow links and recognize that your claims hold no water, then you've just taken a big step confirming what I posted above about anyone taking you seriously other than with reference to your dogs and gaming. Or do you also believe that your simply making a claim makes it true? So it would seem based on your last post.

No its not, Martin has time and time again told you about about the whole ice age thing, and the fact you still tote it out, after all those times, means its useless To talk to you.

And like those climate sources you find, those un links does not say what you think they say.

First, whatever Martin said is not Germaine. I posted specific facts, backed up by links showing that scientists did, in fact, predict this.

YOU prove it wrong, don't hide behind someone else because you are unable to do so.

The UN does in fact refer to it as a pandemic. That makes it pretty clear that they called it a pandemic. How can you claim oath wise? It is there in black and white? How about the billions spent on Y2K? How is that just a media event?

Scientists did predict famine. I have the quotes. How can you claim they did not?

The doomsday clock was a prediction of how close were were to a nuclear war. There were predictions that Reagan's confrontation of the Soviet Union would result in war. Can you not research anything?

Contrary to your assertion, scientists were predicting the earth running out of oil. Again, I've provided the links.

You can't simply say "no you are wrong" and win an argument where the other side has documented their position and you offer nothing other than your baseless claims.

Proof, man! Prove my citations incorrect. Or continue to be recognized as nothing but someone who talks without any basis for the assertions you make.

Stick to dogs, Gun. You are embarrassing yourself badly here.

.

JJ we might as well give up. You can not talk sense to someone who is still so fully my wrapped by the lies he has been told all his life to understand that is what they really are lies.

gunfreak you ask for proof then denies that any of it is the truth. Open your eyes and look for yourself if you do not believe us.

start with how many OPEC countries are now out of oil? according to my 1980's education they were supposed to be running on empty now, yet there pumping more oil today then they did back then. Where is it coming from then? Do all the sewers flow into the oil wells and fill them back up with methane?

I dare you to look at something yourself ans ask the question is it really true.

Birds?

THEY'RE DOOMED TOO!

link

President Obama's avian genocide is one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated against the bird community. His determination to eradicate the population of majestic bald eagles—the single greatest symbolic representation of the American freedom—is particularly unsettling. Half-hearted protests from fair-weather environmentalists, who regard the thousands of brutally murdered eagles every year as mere collateral damage in their misguided quest to save the planet, have done little to dissuade this president. In fact, Obama appears to be pursuing his genocidal ambitions with increasing zeal, as his lust for bird blood grows beyond the "green" energy sector's capacity to chop or incinerate them out of the sky. Energy Wire reports that an estimated 3,500 birds were slaughtered at the Ivanpah solar power plant in its first year of operation. That works out to almost 100 glorious winged creatures massacred each day. The 377-megawatt plant, sprawled across nearly five square miles in the Nevada desert, was financed in part by a $1.6 USD billion taxpayer-guaranteed loan from the Department of Energy. It has been touted by President Obama and Senate minority leader Harry Reid as a critical weapon in the left-wing "war" on "climate" "change." But while the plant's energy production has been lagging, it continues to surpass expectations when it comes to bird murder

But hey, it's green power!

'one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated against the bird community.'

Tell that to the Passenger Pigeon.

Actually, someone failed basic math, since 3,500 a year is about 10 per day.

Lots of birds getting killed here by windmills too, especially the endangered red-tailed hawks.

I suspect in the Pacific NW, lots of eagles are dying there too.

On the plus side, ISIS will probably kill a lot more here than global warming, since we aren't providing any funding to fight the former in the US, but have allocated money for the latter, since "it is a greater threat", or so I'm told.

Of course, just to be clear, I don't believe that for a second.

"JJ we might as well give up. You can not talk sense to someone who is still so fully my wrapped by the lies he has been told all his life to understand that is what they really are lies."

And if you believe oil is limitless, then . Read a basic earth sciences book, for God's sake…

Sorry, I believe in SCIENCE. Hard, real science. Not the "science" that has been carefully parsed and strained through some ideology, which reflexively rejects ANY idea that is not of "our" kind. Which is why I have no intention of ever entering into a fruitless discussion .

As for bird deaths, wind turbines and oil sands tar ponds account few orders of magnitude less than what Felis silvestris catus (domestic cat) kill every year. link

Martin,

That may be, but domestic cats are not being pushed politically and subsidized with tax dollars as a green energy replacement for carbon based fuels.

I believe in SCIENCE. Hard, real science.

So you reject the work of the IPCC?

JJ

So, JJ, you're saying renewable energy is a bad thing? Based on a dubious editorial/hit piece in an even more dubious rag like the FreeBeacon? Really, can't you do better than that?

As for the IPCC: I neither accept, nor reject. I read the science behind the work and make my own conclusions.

So in 8 years the UN will go away?

It needs to go away a lot sooner than that.

As for UN crackpots they can go stuffed themselves.

This is nothing but an attempt to get control and push certain agendas.

The sooner the United States kick the UN out the better.

So, JJ, you're saying renewable energy is a bad thing?

Never said that. I have said it is neither capable at present of replacing carbon based energy, something which I believe even the IPCC recognizes, and that they are not without their own downsides. The source is irrelevant. If I find the same info in a source you favor does that make it more true? Pick one:

link

link

link

Since all of these sites are reporting the same thing as the "rag" as you claim, these sites must be equally unreliable, eh? Or maybe the "rag" is more reliable than you credit it, just not of your political leaning?

link

link

link

link

Of course, it is always easier to insult someone's source than actually look for yourself and try to confirm or dispute something isn't it? Can't you do better than that?

Do you have evidence of them claiming things that are untrue? Or is it just your bias showing?

I read the science behind the work and make my own conclusions.

And? What are your conclusions? What science other than the IPCC do you read? Do you believe Hansen and his predictions? Do you believe the IPCC models actually work? Do you believe there is no other explanation other than what the IPCC is saying? Do you accept the IPCC's position on the carbon footprint of their last meeting, or that they "need more clarity" before they can figure out if their travel footprint should be minimized or avoided? Do you believe that the government proposals for green power such as the massive failure of Spain or the apparent cronyism of the multiple "here's your loan to line your pockets before declaring bankruptcy" green companies is indicative of the way forward?

What do you believe?

JJ

"Never said that. I have said it is neither capable at present of replacing carbon based energy, something which I believe even the IPCC recognizes, and that they are not without their own downsides."

And use a slanted, editorial hit piece as your evidence. No, renewables are not going to replace carbon based energy anytime soon. But you have to start someplace, now don't you. But your response is to point to a snide piece of jingistic opinion thrash.

Nothing further to be had here. This discussion is pointless and useless….

@coastal2 Believing in those basic earth sciences books is all fine and dandy, however.

If they are correct and all the use predictions were correct then why has no one country in the world said OH MY GOD WERE OUT OF OIL!!!!!!

It would be front page news all over the world and the commodities markets would go nuts and tomorrow gas would be $20.00 USD/gal.

So if there was a finite amount of oil in the 80's left to pump (and there pumping it faster then ever today), so many billion gallons and then its all gone then how come all I see on the news is this new 100 billion gallon reserve found, that one found, and ooh look one over there…

Either oil is as easy to come by as sand and is worth nothing or they have been lying to use forever about where it comes from.

Either way I smell a cow pat in there somewhere.

"And use a slanted hit piece as your evidence"

. Given the same facts are covered by sites across the political spectrum stating the same thing, how is it either slanted or a hit piece?

You just like making statements you cannot back up and then run away whenever challenged. You complain that the discussion is pointless and useless. I'd offer that you are making it so. You've offered no discussion, only insults and an inability to defend your claims or respond to direct questions.

Hard to discuss anything when half of the discussion only engages in drive by hit comments and discusses nothing.

Martin and I who disagree on a number of points seem to be able to have a mature discussion regardless.

Looks like "You are The Weakest Link…Goodbye" is appropriate.

JJ

And, aren't you the guy who blathers on about "you can't argue the science so you attack the messenger? Seems that's about your limit, isn't it.

Run

Run away…

Your bogus claims and inabilities are clearly in focus.

Run, run, and run.

Then hide.

I agree. What I disagree with is both "science" being practiced with a desired outcome and both driving decisions and shading interpretations based on preconceived notions as opposed to objective evaluations, as well as this sort of "non-science" being used as a basis for shaping long reaching policy decisions.

I'd offer that there is science that is true that the IPCC does not believe, and that the vocal exaggerations of some of the more theatrical "scientists" make up to support their wild assed predictions.

Recall if you will, that even in non-climate issues, science has many instances of having "known" one thing, and then later learned that what they "knew " at the time was incorrect.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

Richard P. Feynman
link

seem also as pertinent as the quote above.

but perhaps even moreso:

"If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part."
― Richard P. Feynman

link

Oh the "Science was wrong before", AKA the Galileo gambit.

Issac Asimov has a great essay in the fall 1989 edition of The Skeptical Inquirer about what is incorrect vs incomplete and the relativity of wrong:

link

By the way, I agree with the Feynman quotes, and they are doing your position a disservice since there are mutliple debates in the climate change literature, it's just that we're 30+ years away from is it happening since the evidence is overwhelming and the arguments have shifted to second and third order effects. I'll leave you with another quote that might be more apt:

The chief problem with the Galileo gambit is the failure to understand the difference between a well-established scientific law and religious dogma.
—Steven Novella

Martin,

We'll have to continue to disagree on some things.

I'll maintain my skepticism and my questions that no champions of CO2 seem to want to address.

Did you ever read the articles I linked and asked Tim to read and offer comment? I'd recommend them to you as well. I think there is good material to consider in her testimonies and other things she has linked on her page.

link

link

and on a more humorous note:
link

from someone who seems to be a credible voice:
judithcurry.com/about

and there are many other scientific voices who will take issue with your "it's down to second and third order…" claim. I refer you back up to my Feynman quotes.

as for your dismissal of
"Oh the "Science was wrong before"," I'm talking about 180 degrees different, not shades of grey.

The problem I have with "The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts,"

is that there is nothing fuzzy about 180 degrees of difference.

"What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete."

Assumes that all of the scientific concepts are in fact good and man never deceives himself and invests time and effort and belief in a non-good concept that they think is good. Abandoning it means admitting that they were wrong or missed something of significance. Not many want to actually admit that. So in the "wicked" combinations of systems that make up climate, there seems to be legitimate questions from legitimate scientists as to how much of what is being claimed is coincidental or even a part of the answer, but not exclusively causal nor the entire answer. But by insisting tat the science is settled and it is just 2nd and 3rd order issues, they refuse to listen to others or even look.

magnusvermagnusson.com/?p=405

Man is unable to run a sub four minute mile.

others more tangential include:

Tobacco

link

The science of nutrition resulted in potatoes being removed from the diets of the poor via the gov't because of the starch being harmful and a major contributor to obesity, now they are specifically included because of the relative lack of harm as well as the presence of a number of other vitamins and compounds.

Coffee is good for you, coffee is bad for you.

I'm sure you are aware of other cases where what the science of the time "knew" and what they later "knew" were 180 degrees out.

among others, not such things as Thalidomide where the testing was at best incomplete, or exposure to nuclear tests which It seems were as much to determine the harm of radiation as it was to just observe the blast.

Azimov thinks plus equals minus is fuzzy

Feynman thinks plus equals minus is wrong

I'll stick with Feynman.

Boy, this is turning into a Gish Gallop ( link ), and to be frank, if you want to discus science, I'm willing to help further understanding. Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time such as painting up a regiment of militia for my Pike and Shotte Wallenstein army or WW2 French Infantry.

The biggest feature of the scientific method is that all answers are provisional and subject to change in light of new evidence. Yes "Science" blew it a few times, but in the long run it is self-correcting as the new evidence becomes overwhelming and it is forced to undergo a revolutionary re-thinking of the theory and a new consensus will emerge.

Furthermore, many of the health and diet finding should be taken with a grain of salt until you read the methodology since many of the shortcomings which are in the literature aren't reported in the popular press. Ever hear the news report saying that the effect size was small or that the results were only significant at the 90% level instead of the 95% level? Or that dietary studies were based on recollection of what subject had as a diet 20 years ago?

from someone who seems to be a credible voice:
judithcurry.com/about

Unfortunately a PhD and a teaching gig at a respected university isn't a 100% guarantee of quality. Up until a few years ago she was a good researcher, but for some reason that nobody can establish, she's become what she publicly says he hates – a scientist that puts politics and the "home team" first.

The 'Gish Gallop'…. Which is why I steadfastly refused to allow JJ to bait me. That could only lead to frustration and a considerable headache.

As for Judith Curry; strange case. Good researcher with a solid record. But what happen in the last few years is a mystery. Yet she is one of JJ's favorites (even though she is the model of the very kind of political agenda driven scientist that JJ so abhors. I guess that doesn't matter if you happen to agree with the aforementioned agenda).

And, JJ, I think you're sadly misinterpreting Dr. Feynman. And, yes, I KNEW the man (and a great pleasure it was…).

Coastal2

Asking you to support your claims is hardly baiting. You challenged a source and I provided a wide spectrum of sources essentially providing the same info. Rather than discussing the facts, you double down on the insult and run away.

How am I misinterpreting Dr. Feynman?

"
Unfortunately a PhD and a teaching gig at a respected university isn't a 100% guarantee of quality. "

If she was Jane the Charwoman, the points she raises are still worth considering. The IPCC was established NOT to look at the issue of climate change, but specifically at one piece of the possible combinations that come into play. The funding is anti- carbon, and left wing political. The fact they find what they were paid to find as opposed to a complete across the board study is, at least to me, troubling. Curry isn't the only scientist who disagrees with either or both of the methodologies or conclusions of the IPCC. Most are not "deniers" as coastal likes to throw around, but folks who don't think the system that is climate is as simple as the IPCC folks. Their pressure and shunning of contrary opinions is hardly objective science, particularly when the questions raised are not answered by the IPCC's answers.

Curry is hardly 'one of my favorites' having just recently found her. I think she raises some interesting points that just like the info from Free Beacon still constitute interesting points that seem valid.

Unlike, let's say, the "totally objective and non-political" Dr. Hansen. I'm sue you have no problem with his credentials, independence or veracity, right?

And coastal, those troubling shortcomings of wind and solar are still awaiting you discussion. Unless the best you have is more insults and a hearty "whatever" before running away again.

Unlike, let's say, the "totally objective and non-political" Dr. Hansen. I'm sue you have no problem with his credentials, independence or veracity, right?

Look, I'm currently working on my PhD in Geography. I'll admit to a certain form of credentialism, in that I'll give a right of first listen to those with a degree, but I still reserve the right to mock, ridicule and lambaste foolish and erroneous theories.

What really matters is the quality of the research, depth of insight and it's replicability/reproducibility. Early Curry and Hanson fit the second criteria. Unfortunately, the latter writing of Judith Curry don't.

Curry is hardly 'one of my favorites' having just recently found her. I think she raises some interesting points that just like the info from Free Beacon still constitute interesting points that seem valid.

Unfortunately, the universe is cruel in that it is in no way obligated to make sense to people who haven't studied the field in depth with like minded individuals and access to the world's leading libraries at their fingertips constantly trying to destroy each others pet theories.

The sources you're siting have the intellectual heft of cotton candy and they are to climate science what callers to Coast to Coast AM are to theoretical physics and astronomy. Just because you want FTL drives, the universe is in no obligation to do so. Reality has a veto on flights of fancy.

JJ- As I have repeatedly stated, I have no intention of getting any kind of discussion with you. I'm just not interested in running down that useless path. There are far more important/interesting things I have to attend to.

And, no, I'm not 'running away' (as you'd like to think). I'm not running, walking or strolling; I'm just ignoring you.

HAVE A NICE DAY…..

Coastal2, if you come in, insult me, mock my sources, refuse to acknowledge the truth of the information, refuse to answer direct questions and then leave the discussion, or only offer 'whatever', or beg off saying you refuse to enter into a pointless discussion then you are both running away and trolling.

If there are more important things to do then don't take the time to insult and mock in the first place. If you continue to find time for that, claiming you have better things to do, then that is a totally lame and hypocritical excuse.

I don't expect you to change as you've repeatedly found time to troll and then claim life is too important to waste your time. So I fully expect your lame behavior to continue with the same lame replies.

Martin, you take issue with Curry and her background and her positions and questions but seem far more accepting and tolerant of the liars, hypocrites and false prophets of doom like Hansen.

I find that curious.

JJ

"Unfortunately a PhD and a teaching gig at a respected university isn't a 100% guarantee of quality. Up until a few years ago she was a good researcher, but for some reason that nobody can establish, she's become what she publicly says he hates – a scientist that puts politics and the "home team" first."

It isn't indicative of any weakness either. How many IPCC scientists have less than her?

Also seems there are many on the other side doing exactly what you claim of her.

What I disagree with is both "science" being practiced with a desired outcome and both driving decisions and shading interpretations based on preconceived notions as opposed to objective evaluations, as well as this sort of "non-science" being used as a basis for shaping long reaching policy decisions.

You mean unlike "science" funded by the oil and coal industries…

I'm old enough to remember when tobacco companies funded scientific research that should not only was smoking not harmful it was positively good for you.

A fitting analogy in the current situation.

You mean unlike "science" funded by the oil and coal industries…

I'm old enough to remember when tobacco companies funded scientific research that should not only was smoking not harmful it was positively good for you.

A fitting analogy in the current situation.

There's a great book and movie on this called Merchants of Doubt.

Excellent book (and the movie was good, too). It always amused me when the Tobacco Institute would get quoted by some party pushing against tobacco regulation. Reminds me of the old term 'cathouse doctor'. (had to edit the original, but you get the point).

Terrement – Please state your climatology background. Your education, work experience and full history.

1) Science reporting is subject to the media – they report the attention grabbing bits.

2) There is no money in stating that Man Made Global Overheating (to be accurate – climate change is what you get when Scientists listen to PR) is real and a danger.

3) We are in unknown territory – the predictions are not going to be 100% – stuff that wasn't forseen will change things 10 years down the road. Global Temperature isn't where they thought it would be 10 years ago- the reason being that the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than expected. BUT this is leading to the acidification of the oceans, and is killing the sealife – big lump of food chain going there. And this absorption isn't limitless.

4) As the Siberian tundra defrosts (and it is) it releases more CO2.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, no one disputes that.
Has man released massive amounts of CO2 in the last 250 years?
Yes we have.

How certain do you want them to be? Put it another way- how much are you willing to bet the whole of humanity on? 5% chance they are wrong? I wouldn't bet that. Do you think we should bet EVERYTHING – 7 billion lives – on what % the science is wrong? Everything on Black- 50/50? What if there was only a 10% chance of extinction – that good enough odds for you to bet everything?

Put another way.

A lunatic breaks into your house, you and your entire family are tied up (let us be clear – there is no 2nd amendment heroism in this scenario – you are completely at his mercy)

He is about everything of monetary value and trash the sentimental but black-market worthless.

BUT because he is a psychopath he decides to play a little game. You can be assured he will stick to the bargain.

He goes to your dice box and takes out a d20, one you know is perfectly fair. You may choose to roll. If you don't roll, he takes everything. If you choose to roll, and can roll a 20, he will leave and take nothing. Any other result he will execute your family in front of you. 1 in 20 too risky. What about 18+? 10+? What odds does he have to offer you to take that gamble? What odds will you risk your entire family on.

Because that's what mankind is doing if we assume the scientists are wrong with out strong evidence.

You lost me with UN.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, no one disputes that.
Has man released massive amounts of CO2 in the last 250 years?
Yes we have

Proving nothing.

History has a number of recorded instances of major increases in the average temperature with no CO2 driver, as well as instances of large CO2 without increased heat.

Which means, there is AT LEAST one other, if not several other drivers involved. If CO2 was the primary driver, then each time there is an increase of significance, especially over a period of time, a driver would drive the equation.

Explain why it didn't.

Can any of the warming alarmists prove the extent to which the warming is man driven as opposed to other factors? No.

Might the simplifying assumptions of the models be hiding a significant factor or two, or three, or more? That when lookede at individually are insignificant, but when combined are very significant.

Is there no relationship between the UN's position that the warming alarmists are there not to save the world but to fundamentally change the world economic model, and the UN's position that nations all over the world need to cut industry with no available replacement power source? If not, why not?

Why is it that every scientific study funded by a conservative or libertarian think tank, or energy company is fatally flawed from the outset because of the source of the funds, yet there is supposedly no bias when the funding is from LW universities, LW organizations like the ones funded by Soros and Kerry, and LW governments who have declared war on coal? Somehow that research is untainted and pure as the driven snow? .

1) Science reporting is subject to the media – they report the attention grabbing bits.

And when they are flat out nonsense, a responsible scientific community should say so, but do do not – apparently preferring hysteria to truth. MSM should also do follow up stories on the many "tipping point tomorrow" "3 days left to save the world" (I'm exaggerating for effect) stories that have YET to be true. ANY of them.

I dispute your analogy.

A wild eyed loon busts into your house with a cardboard box and screams that if you don't listen to him, in a few years, the streets will be flooded feet deep in melted water!!! You have to act now and pay him thousands of dollars for the rest of your life, or he'll unleash the terror that is in the box.

Someone recognizes him as the guy who used to be selling a different box claiming just as loudly that the earth was about to freeze and we needed to start putting coal dust on the arctic to start melting the ice to counter the dire threat of what is in his box. He's had other dire predictions that have similarly been off the charts, and never proven true. How much do you pay him?

You have an organization who categorically states that practice X is destroying the world, and everyone needs to take drastic action to stop this. They in turn, not only continue this practice, but increase it. They they lie about why it doesn't matter. These folks credible? How?

I can go on, and generate many more, but the point remains, my little stories are based on TRUTH, NOW. Not about conjecture decades from now.

I'm not disputing that climate change is occurring. I do not accept that the IPCC folks have it nailed. I'm with the scientists who think that the system of dynamic variables and interrelations are far more complicated than the IPCC assumes, and that some of their simplifying assumptions are unwarranted. So to take drastic action when they don't have it right is foolish.

So, do you have a solution? One that all of the key players will observe? Didn't think so.

In the end it doesn't matter who is right if they don't have a solution that will be effective and acceptable to everyone who needs to participate. Promises like China's which essentially says "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" is a meaningless kicking of the can down the road. Should they curb their pollution? They will have to. But it won't be because the UN said so. Germany? Busy switching from petrol to coal. India? Not only have they said they won't stop their pollution from power plants, they will continue to expand because their people and economy needs it TODAY, not in a century.

So write all the posts you want. Provide me with graphs like Martin, and links like mandt2, and whatever you want to add on your own.

You cannot answer the specific questions I've repeatedly raised – see adjacent chocolate thread – and I suspect you have no answer for how to solve the problem given the realities of the international economic picture which is already terrible, and unlikely to survive the cuts the UN wants.

But as I've said in other threads, I don't think you are right, but even if you are it doesn't matter without a solution that is effective and palatable by everyone who must participate. The IPCC plan will never be that plan.

History has a number of recorded instances of major increases in the average temperature with no CO2 driver, as well as instances of large CO2 without increased heat.

I'm current on that literature, could you name any specifics?

In the mean time, I'll leave you with Dr. Richard Alley's excellent talk at the 2012 AGU meeting.
YouTube link

Can any of the warming alarmists prove the extent to which the warming is man driven as opposed to other factors? No.

Yes, there's a very large literature on that. Furthermore, that's all of chapter 10 of the IPCC's WG1 for the latest cycle.

PDF link

Why is it that every scientific study funded by a conservative or libertarian think tank, or energy company is fatally flawed from the outset because of the source of the funds, yet there is supposedly no bias when the funding is from LW universities, LW organizations like the ones funded by Soros and Kerry, and LW governments who have declared war on coal? Somehow that research is untainted and pure as the driven snow? Bleeped text.

Well, I could quip that reality has a rather well known liberal bias, or borrow Sherlock Holmes saying: 'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.', but at the end of the day, many of those studies are fatally flawed since they are ether cherrypicking/ hoping for a false positive on an absurdly small sample size since they are constitutionally opposed to anything that goes against their fundamentalist beliefs in the free market. There's an extensive literature on this, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Rachel Was Wrong campaign proudly tripping on concepts thought in high school biology about natural selection breeding pest's resistance to pesticides (as in fact happened in Sri Lanka – a country that did not ban DDT), or take the case of Dr. Sigfried F. Signer. He's was a prominent cold war physicist who started shilling for the tobacco industry by trying to debunking epistemological studies on the tobacco/cancer link. It should be stressed that this is an area where he has no formal education, nor any publications in peer-reviewed journals. Not that he has lost the fight against tobacco regulation, he has turned his attention to climate science, where he is marginally more qualified, and using the same playbook as he did with the Big Tobacco. And the list goes on.

And when they are flat out nonsense, a responsible scientific community should say so, but do do not – apparently preferring hysteria to truth. MSM should also do follow up stories on the many "tipping point tomorrow" "3 days left to save the world" (I'm exaggerating for effect) stories that have YET to be true. ANY of them.

I dispute your analogy.

Well, in order to make it more palatable to the political class, more and more heroic assumptions are being made for the 2050 techbase are being used, or on the other hand, we're changing the odds from 66% chance of staying under 2 degrees to 33% chance of staying under 2 degrees.

As you'll notice that expands the total carbon budget from 1000gt of CO2 to 1500gt of CO2, and thus "giving more time".

Other fanciful assumptions that are used are for example carbon negative energy with a high yield biofuels tied to carbon capture and sequestration, all of which involve many technical hurdles and no guarantee that they we can get them in time and performing to spec by 2050.

link

And when they are flat out nonsense, a responsible scientific community should say so, but do do not – apparently preferring hysteria to truth. MSM should also do follow up stories on the many "tipping point tomorrow" "3 days left to save the world" (I'm exaggerating for effect) stories that have YET to be true. ANY of them.

Except that it takes about 30 years for all of the short-term feedback of a molecule of CO2 to be reverberate around all of the layers of the climate system. This is called the Transient Climate Response. The best guess according the the 5th IPCC report is that this value is somewhere between 1 and 3 degrees Celsius with the top of the bell curve at 2 degrees per doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels. However that warming will trigger further warming in the long-run as warmer weather melts ice and snow, which lowers the Earth's albedo (ability to reflect sunlight back into space rather than being absorbed by the surface. White snow has high albedo, black pavement has low albedo) which will trigger even more warming, etc until a new equilibrium is reached. This new value is called the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. The 95% range according to the IPCC is between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. There is a slight divergence between the paleoclimate record and the modern empirically derived ECS, with the paleoclimate record clustering around 3 degrees and the modern estimates having a top of the probability function closer to 2.5 degrees, but with a much larger base – meaning more uncertainty. Most of that uncertainty is due to human induced pollution such as SO2 and smog causing particulates having a cooling effect due mostly to increasing atmospheric albedo. Indicdently, it is the presence of SO2, and other lower atmospheric pollutants cooling the planet that were the nucleus for those earth is cooling stories in the 70s, but these were a minor part of the literature, and essentially dead by the late 1970s when the Nixon's lead Clean Air Act started reversing atmospheric pollution.

I'm not disputing that climate change is occurring. I do not accept that the IPCC folks have it nailed. I'm with the scientists who think that the system of dynamic variables and interrelations are far more complicated than the IPCC assumes, and that some of their simplifying assumptions are unwarranted. So to take drastic action when they don't have it right is foolish.

but please before you say that again, actually read and try to understand the IPCC. Even the summary for policy makers – which is mostly devoid of math – is a well crafted, if conservative, take on the literature as it stood in early 2013.

Promises like China's which essentially says "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" is a meaningless kicking of the can down the road. Should they curb their pollution? They will have to.

Well, this year they have reduced their emissions YTD over last year by the same amount that the entire UK emitted during that period. link
I even found it in a Tory newspaper. Does that pass your epistemological filter?

You cannot answer the specific questions I've repeatedly raised – see adjacent chocolate thread – and I suspect you have no answer for how to solve the problem given the realities of the international economic picture which is already terrible, and unlikely to survive the cuts the UN wants.

Before we start dealing with the political question of what to do with reducing GHG emissions, we have to first agree that there is a problem. Furthermore, and here's the tragic/ironic part is that all of this was more or less settled in 1992 at the Rio conference. Had we started mitigation then, the pace of change would have been slower, less drastic, require less fanciful technology and would have averted billions to trillions in mal-investment for infrastructure that is unsustainable. In many ways, it's similar to trying to save for retirement at 25 vs trying to save for retirement at 55.

How certain do you want them to be?

Depends.

Let's look at modern health.

CASE 1: There are continual updates / reversals to what is or isn't good for you. I see my Doc. She says "your cholesterol is up a little, need to eat less red meat, exercise more." I'd be inclined to do just that. She's probably right , can't hurt, not a major impact on my life. If it turns out the red meat wasn't as big of an issue for reasons not known now, but learned in five years, no big deal. How certain do I want her to be? I'm good with what she is telling me based on her track record of good advice plus what I've learned and experienced in the real world.

CASE 2: There are continual updates / reversals to what is or isn't good for you. I see my Doc. She says "You are unhealthy. You have too much blood in your system. I know you body functions on six quarts of blood, but for the betterment of humanity, you will have to function with half that. You'll be drained at regular intervals to ensure you don't again have too much. Oh, sure, you'll be weaker, have less endurance, recover more slowly, and be susceptible to germs and infections, but hey, I'm a doctor and I'm telling you you'll just have to learn to adapt to your new living conditions."

Need a whole lot more certainty, don't you agree?

Back to you…

JJ

Just want to correct the record, but Dr. Alley's talk was in 2009, not 2012 – that's the year the video was published on youtube.

I highly recommend his talk since he's an engaging speaker and deals with paleo CO2 evidence.