But since you're an expert, let's see, when was the last time that C02 was 400ppm? 12 times in the last 100k years? Or was it millions of years ago, when the earth was 8C warmer. And we might actually (small probability) reach that in a few hundred years too. Nothing could go wrong!!!
So don't worry, a few made up facts and some rose coloured glasses, and you can tell your kids that you wanted nothing more than to grow the economy through burning more oil/coal, because that was the moral thing to do!!!!
Ah yes, it's a right wing conspiracy. Nothing the left wing could be doing might be even remotely possible for damaging education in science.
The left-wing may have naive ideas about children's self-esteem, but that right-wing has naive ideas about what knowledge is all-together. Different ballpark.
They are none of those things, they're just plain immoral by normal western standards when it comes to honesty
They really don't know that they are making this stuff up. It's not that they are immoral, but that their mind is interpreting things in a very self-serving way, and also censoring information that they don't want to know. Morality itself is at the heart of the cognitive dissonance that drives this madness.
I don't believe that stupidity comes from "not knowing", as you suggest. It is more a case that moral values drive a world view that "facts" are shoe-horned into. And if you're wrong about the facts, then that is like being a bad person -- and almost everyone thinks of themselves as a good person.
Examples: patriarchy is socially constructed, because otherwise women will be oppressed for ever. (Obviously fallacious.)
Whether or not vaccines cause autism, they are unnatural, and harm the body's natural ability to fight disease. (Obviously fallacious.)
Global warming must be wrong because it is immoral for the government to interfere with the economy. (Obviously fallacious.)
Every hot button issue I've ever encountered has this quality to it. And the very same psychological defense mechanisms are always present. For example, we all see ourselves as "nuanced" and "reasonable", so it must be the other guy who is an ideologue. Projection, denial, externalization and intellectualism all derive from the need to resolve this type of cognitive dissonance, and at the heart of it all is the notion of what is "right" and "sacred" and must be protected -- which itself seems to be quite arbitrary.
Moving heat from one place to the other--the idiomatic interpretation of the above, probably the only valid way to interpret this in vernacular English, certainly the only common interpretation for native speakers--would involve cooling one area and warming another. Cooling is not my addition.
Okay, I'm stopping reading here, simply because there is an expression in Japan "He who does not listen does not hear".
Think for a moment, if the average change is 0.5C, and the equator change less than the poles, does that mean that mean that the equator cools?
This is the type of question you would ask people in grade six.
So a 0.5C rise actually cools the equator, and warms the ice caps, you say?
"Cools" is your addition.
And after 0.5C in some decades, we're going to jump 10 times that in what? 300 years?
There will probably be dramatic effects at 2C, which you will see in your lifetime if you are young. A 5C change would make large parts of the globe uninhabitable (too hot for mammals), and many meters of sea level rise.
And the solution to this is what? To bring in and retain more heat from space on the planet's surface?
The solution is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas pollution. Remember? CO2? It's really not that hard, and not going to cause that many problems, but special interests and the political faithful are dead set against doing *anything*. Because the atmosphere should be an unpriced garbage dump. That's FREEDOM!!! for you.
In the meantime if the IPCC doesn't want people pointing out that their reports are internally inconsistent,
That is patent nonsense. Scientists don't want incompetents spinning graphs out of context for special-interest reasons. Not the same thing at all.
Perhaps this could be achieved by widening the error bars on the model to include variances of the scale of ENSCO
That is silly. The error bars are supposed to report uncertainty. The data should be reported with ENSCO smoothed out.
Otherwise it reads "These models, which we show not to be correct,..."
If the error bar is 95%, then we expect the line to wiggle out of the error bar 5% of the time. If it doesn't -- for sufficiently long (which is a math calculation btw) -- then we have evidence of cherry picking.
SymbolSet, can you look at that graph and say that there is no risk, based on the graph alone? Don't forget that the trend hasn't been correct for ENSCO patterns. The trend is multidecadal, and we're only looking at a very short time series (usually less than 10 years) Also this is *surface* temperature, and when corrected for ENSCO, it is still well within error bars. Most of the heat capacity of the earth is in the oceans (which should be obvious when you think about the heat capacity of water, and how much of it there is), and the ocean temperature signal is much more monotonic. It would be shocking if you add heat into the climate system and there are no consequences.
All we can say is that the models *may* be running a *little* hot on surface temperature, but we're not sure yet, and that that *may* reduce various risk assessments a little.
Now if the ocean temperatures weren't rising as well (and the surface temps *are* rising), and the ENSCO corrected surface temp rise continues to be shallow (it is a *little* shallow) for a decade more, then we can say the models are running hot. But that just means we've bought ourselves decades to do something about the problem.
Unfortunately, the pseudo-scientific types are on both sides of this issue. And they all have mod points.
Sure that's true; however, there are next-to-none scientific types on the "skeptic" side of the issue. If you pick an actual climate change expert random, then with probability 1.0 almost surely, they agree that AGW is a problem.
The US government is subsidizing flood insurance, which is the worst idea ever. You want beach front property, then you had better be able to pay for a replacement house every 20 years when it gets hit hard. Let the market sort this out.
And yet here you sit using the same electricity that is supposed to be killing the planet to whine about it. Get rid of your car, get rid of your computer.
That's not going to help, and is not even necessary.
Investing heavily in nuclear/solar/wind/geothermal/tidal -- that is necessary. We esp. need R&D on nuclear, but people are irrationally afraid of it. (Seriously, about 100 people have died from reactor accidents, mostly Chernobyl, and mostly from old designs that wouldn't have failed if they had been upgraded.)
There is plenty of R&D in Solar and Wind... but so much more can be done.
And then there are energy saving programs that boost the economy by transferring money from utility companies to construction companies. (They boost the economy, because money comes in the form of a loan.) Retro-fitting factories and houses will create a lot of work, and necessarily must be done if we're not going to turn off our computers.
Yeah, 0.5C on average across the globe. But the atmosphere shuffles heat from the tropics to the polls, which means the equator barely changes, but the polls (esp. arctic) get a lot warmer. That's why greenland and the polar cap are melting. Also, 0.5C on average across the entire globe is a lot of extra energy in the climate system. And we're probably heading upwards of 4-6C.
It amazes me that such a pathetically weak argument -- looking at a short time series in a decadal trend -- actually has legs with joe average. But I've seen plenty of smart people fall for this obviously fallacious argument. Just goes to show what motivated reasoning does to you.
So someone told you that the models are running hot (which is still only a possibility), and you point straight to that figure, and QED, climate change isn't a big deal!!! The IPCC has credibility for you when you can point to something like that, otherwise they have no credibility at all, since you wouldn't want to read the rest of the report, and actually, you know, understand what it actually says.
This is motivated reasoning pure and simple. And besides, the AGW hypothesis is not predicated on models.
I've listened to just about everything you can find about him on youtube. This is part of what I study academically. I wish we taught critical thinking at university, because we don't and we need to. In particular, critical thinking involves understanding how people get stuck in ideas and world-views, and what that looks like: aka Monckton. Yes its madness, but it is also very human, and even *you* are human in this regard.
They fudge whole studies... by comparing drugs against poor baselines (see it works!), or moving a hydrogen atom on a chemical, rebranding/repatenting it, and the claiming it treats some specific (sometimes made-up) ailment, like crappy-day syndrome.
When you start demanding evidence that cures work... even western medicine has a lot to answer for. But at least some (many) people take the collection and analysis of evidence seriously -- as you are no doubt aware.
Haha, let go of the black and white thinking for a second. The assertion is that ALL alternative medicine has been PROVEN not to work. Just let your mind rest on that statement for a while, and ask yourself if it is reasonable. There is some evidence accruing that both meditation and hypnosis are good for managing chronic pain. Also, the entire clinical psych profession is raving about mindfulness, which is another ancient "technique".
You never know when some local tribe will use some herbs (or cultural technique) to successively deal the a health issue.
The question of efficacy is when you test such a technique against placebo (or current best known cure)
I think you've got Monckton wrong. He's probably very fun and personable and nice, and almost certainly values integrity and ethics. He's also stark raving mad. That doesn't mean he's for hire. I'm sure he sees himself as terribly important, and doing very important work to save the world. It's all just a little bit psychotic. Or a lot. I don't think money has much to do with this particular case.
I'm betting their rebuttal goes no where, because frankly, it's too difficult to scientifically evaluate the methods in a controlled environment.
No more or less difficult than testing any other medicine.
Even without a placebo effect, there are probably a few instances,
The placebo effect is robust. It really does help to give someone a sugar pill and tell them it is a pain killer. It makes sense when you realize that pain is experienced in the brain.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the guy is full of bull-pucky.
But I wall you all to STFU about it because any solution will end up destroying the world economy.
Sounds like alarmism to me. What does the economics profession say? I suppose they are just another bunch of people who you think are stupid.
Its called a living planet.
Oh gee, the "It's natural" argument. You would have thunk that scientists would have thought of that, and written about it in the IPCC. That's why its call "Anthropogenic" global warming after all.
But since you're an expert, let's see, when was the last time that C02 was 400ppm? 12 times in the last 100k years? Or was it millions of years ago, when the earth was 8C warmer. And we might actually (small probability) reach that in a few hundred years too. Nothing could go wrong!!!
So don't worry, a few made up facts and some rose coloured glasses, and you can tell your kids that you wanted nothing more than to grow the economy through burning more oil/coal, because that was the moral thing to do!!!!
Ah yes, it's a right wing conspiracy. Nothing the left wing could be doing might be even remotely possible for damaging education in science.
The left-wing may have naive ideas about children's self-esteem, but that right-wing has naive ideas about what knowledge is all-together. Different ballpark.
They are none of those things, they're just plain immoral by normal western standards when it comes to honesty
They really don't know that they are making this stuff up. It's not that they are immoral, but that their mind is interpreting things in a very self-serving way, and also censoring information that they don't want to know. Morality itself is at the heart of the cognitive dissonance that drives this madness.
I don't believe that stupidity comes from "not knowing", as you suggest. It is more a case that moral values drive a world view that "facts" are shoe-horned into. And if you're wrong about the facts, then that is like being a bad person -- and almost everyone thinks of themselves as a good person.
Examples: patriarchy is socially constructed, because otherwise women will be oppressed for ever. (Obviously fallacious.)
Whether or not vaccines cause autism, they are unnatural, and harm the body's natural ability to fight disease. (Obviously fallacious.)
Global warming must be wrong because it is immoral for the government to interfere with the economy. (Obviously fallacious.)
Every hot button issue I've ever encountered has this quality to it. And the very same psychological defense mechanisms are always present. For example, we all see ourselves as "nuanced" and "reasonable", so it must be the other guy who is an ideologue. Projection, denial, externalization and intellectualism all derive from the need to resolve this type of cognitive dissonance, and at the heart of it all is the notion of what is "right" and "sacred" and must be protected -- which itself seems to be quite arbitrary.
Just my 2 cents.
Moving heat from one place to the other--the idiomatic interpretation of the above, probably the only valid way to interpret this in vernacular English, certainly the only common interpretation for native speakers--would involve cooling one area and warming another. Cooling is not my addition.
Okay, I'm stopping reading here, simply because there is an expression in Japan "He who does not listen does not hear".
Think for a moment, if the average change is 0.5C, and the equator change less than the poles, does that mean that mean that the equator cools?
This is the type of question you would ask people in grade six.
So a 0.5C rise actually cools the equator, and warms the ice caps, you say?
"Cools" is your addition.
And after 0.5C in some decades, we're going to jump 10 times that in what? 300 years?
There will probably be dramatic effects at 2C, which you will see in your lifetime if you are young. A 5C change would make large parts of the globe uninhabitable (too hot for mammals), and many meters of sea level rise.
And the solution to this is what? To bring in and retain more heat from space on the planet's surface?
The solution is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas pollution. Remember? CO2? It's really not that hard, and not going to cause that many problems, but special interests and the political faithful are dead set against doing *anything*. Because the atmosphere should be an unpriced garbage dump. That's FREEDOM!!! for you.
In the meantime if the IPCC doesn't want people pointing out that their reports are internally inconsistent,
That is patent nonsense. Scientists don't want incompetents spinning graphs out of context for special-interest reasons. Not the same thing at all.
Perhaps this could be achieved by widening the error bars on the model to include variances of the scale of ENSCO
That is silly. The error bars are supposed to report uncertainty. The data should be reported with ENSCO smoothed out.
Otherwise it reads "These models, which we show not to be correct, ..."
If the error bar is 95%, then we expect the line to wiggle out of the error bar 5% of the time. If it doesn't -- for sufficiently long (which is a math calculation btw) -- then we have evidence of cherry picking.
Al Gore said in 2006 that we had 10 years to stop global warming.
Is that really what he said? Hint, you forgot some important qualifiers.
SymbolSet, can you look at that graph and say that there is no risk, based on the graph alone? Don't forget that the trend hasn't been correct for ENSCO patterns. The trend is multidecadal, and we're only looking at a very short time series (usually less than 10 years) Also this is *surface* temperature, and when corrected for ENSCO, it is still well within error bars. Most of the heat capacity of the earth is in the oceans (which should be obvious when you think about the heat capacity of water, and how much of it there is), and the ocean temperature signal is much more monotonic. It would be shocking if you add heat into the climate system and there are no consequences.
All we can say is that the models *may* be running a *little* hot on surface temperature, but we're not sure yet, and that that *may* reduce various risk assessments a little.
Now if the ocean temperatures weren't rising as well (and the surface temps *are* rising), and the ENSCO corrected surface temp rise continues to be shallow (it is a *little* shallow) for a decade more, then we can say the models are running hot. But that just means we've bought ourselves decades to do something about the problem.
Al Gore said in 2006 that we had 10 years to stop global warming.
citation needed.
Unfortunately, the pseudo-scientific types are on both sides of this issue. And they all have mod points.
Sure that's true; however, there are next-to-none scientific types on the "skeptic" side of the issue. If you pick an actual climate change expert random, then with probability 1.0 almost surely, they agree that AGW is a problem.
The US government is subsidizing flood insurance, which is the worst idea ever. You want beach front property, then you had better be able to pay for a replacement house every 20 years when it gets hit hard. Let the market sort this out.
And yet here you sit using the same electricity that is supposed to be killing the planet to whine about it. Get rid of your car, get rid of your computer.
That's not going to help, and is not even necessary.
Investing heavily in nuclear/solar/wind/geothermal/tidal -- that is necessary. We esp. need R&D on nuclear, but people are irrationally afraid of it. (Seriously, about 100 people have died from reactor accidents, mostly Chernobyl, and mostly from old designs that wouldn't have failed if they had been upgraded.)
There is plenty of R&D in Solar and Wind... but so much more can be done.
And then there are energy saving programs that boost the economy by transferring money from utility companies to construction companies. (They boost the economy, because money comes in the form of a loan.) Retro-fitting factories and houses will create a lot of work, and necessarily must be done if we're not going to turn off our computers.
But it's not too late. In fact things are happening, but just a little too slowly.
Yeah, 0.5C on average across the globe. But the atmosphere shuffles heat from the tropics to the polls, which means the equator barely changes, but the polls (esp. arctic) get a lot warmer. That's why greenland and the polar cap are melting. Also, 0.5C on average across the entire globe is a lot of extra energy in the climate system. And we're probably heading upwards of 4-6C.
It amazes me that such a pathetically weak argument -- looking at a short time series in a decadal trend -- actually has legs with joe average. But I've seen plenty of smart people fall for this obviously fallacious argument. Just goes to show what motivated reasoning does to you.
So someone told you that the models are running hot (which is still only a possibility), and you point straight to that figure, and QED, climate change isn't a big deal!!! The IPCC has credibility for you when you can point to something like that, otherwise they have no credibility at all, since you wouldn't want to read the rest of the report, and actually, you know, understand what it actually says.
This is motivated reasoning pure and simple. And besides, the AGW hypothesis is not predicated on models.
I've listened to just about everything you can find about him on youtube. This is part of what I study academically. I wish we taught critical thinking at university, because we don't and we need to. In particular, critical thinking involves understanding how people get stuck in ideas and world-views, and what that looks like: aka Monckton. Yes its madness, but it is also very human, and even *you* are human in this regard.
because they either fudged their numbers
They fudge whole studies... by comparing drugs against poor baselines (see it works!), or moving a hydrogen atom on a chemical, rebranding/repatenting it, and the claiming it treats some specific (sometimes made-up) ailment, like crappy-day syndrome.
When you start demanding evidence that cures work... even western medicine has a lot to answer for. But at least some (many) people take the collection and analysis of evidence seriously -- as you are no doubt aware.
You know what they call it when it's proven NOT to work? Alternative medicine.
And we certainly don't know enough medicine to say that everything outside of accepted western medicine has been PROVEN not to work.
Haha, let go of the black and white thinking for a second. The assertion is that ALL alternative medicine has been PROVEN not to work. Just let your mind rest on that statement for a while, and ask yourself if it is reasonable. There is some evidence accruing that both meditation and hypnosis are good for managing chronic pain. Also, the entire clinical psych profession is raving about mindfulness, which is another ancient "technique".
You never know when some local tribe will use some herbs (or cultural technique) to successively deal the a health issue.
The question of efficacy is when you test such a technique against placebo (or current best known cure)
I think you've got Monckton wrong. He's probably very fun and personable and nice, and almost certainly values integrity and ethics. He's also stark raving mad. That doesn't mean he's for hire. I'm sure he sees himself as terribly important, and doing very important work to save the world. It's all just a little bit psychotic. Or a lot. I don't think money has much to do with this particular case.
I'm betting their rebuttal goes no where, because frankly, it's too difficult to scientifically evaluate the methods in a controlled environment.
No more or less difficult than testing any other medicine.
Even without a placebo effect, there are probably a few instances,
The placebo effect is robust. It really does help to give someone a sugar pill and tell them it is a pain killer. It makes sense when you realize that pain is experienced in the brain.