Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    I'm really tired of the analogy with tobacco. Tobacco was know to be deadly by almost everyone I knew that smoked when I was kid long before the government decided to campaign about the health risks. To compare the use of fossil fuels to the use of tobacco is to deny that fossil fuels ever had a benefit for mankind and to imply that tobacco use was at one time beneficial. To equate something that has greatly improved the health and well being of humans to something that as been a scourge since it's introduction shows the delusional nature of the people that demonized fossil fuels.
    No one I know states that fossil fuels are in anyway as bad as tobacco. The FF industries are just using the same tactics to delay change to cleaning up their act, as this will cost money.

    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    If you could make the case that fossil fuels could be eliminated tomorrow and the human race would be better for it then perhaps it would not be so insane to try and argue their inherent evil. Even if fossil fuels are replaced by environmentally friendly alternatives for ground transportation and electric power they will still be needed for things such as jet fuel for the foreseeable future.
    No one is stating that we could or should eliminate FF use. We just need to be smarter and use alternatives when we can, like cycling or walking as examples. Smaller cars for commuting is also sensible. I can go on.
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    This presentation of reductio ad absurdum argument is in itself a strawman.
    You don't like the way I've presented the oil companies because you cannot deny the truth.

    Either AGW is true or AGW is false. If AGW is true, we need to take note.

    If AGW is false why haven't the FF industries done something about it? They have had the best part of 30 years since Margaret Thatchers speech to the UN, and nearly 10 years since Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, to highlight publicly that AGW is false. If AGW is false, these industries are truly incompetent. However, you don't supply more than 80% of the planets energy needs per year if you are incompetent, so logic dictates AGW is true.
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
      No one I know states that fossil fuels are in anyway as bad as tobacco. The FF industries are just using the same tactics to delay change to cleaning up their act, as this will cost money.


      No one is stating that we could or should eliminate FF use. We just need to be smarter and use alternatives when we can, like cycling or walking as examples. Smaller cars for commuting is also sensible. I can go on.

      You don't like the way I've presented the oil companies because you cannot deny the truth.

      Either AGW is true or AGW is false. If AGW is true, we need to take note.

      If AGW is false why haven't the FF industries done something about it? They have had the best part of 30 years since Margaret Thatchers speech to the UN, and nearly 10 years since Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, to highlight publicly that AGW is false. If AGW is false, these industries are truly incompetent. However, you don't supply more than 80% of the planets energy needs per year if you are incompetent, so logic dictates AGW is true.
      Reducing logic down to the Nickolodeon false dilemma fallacy.
      • If AGW is true, the climate models would have demonstrated predictive skill.
      • If AGW is false, the climate models would have failed to demonstrate predictive skill.
      • The climate models have totally failed to demonstrate predictive skill. Therefore AGW is false.


      The models are failed hypotheses.
      The Houston Geological Society Bulletin
      Vol. 56 (2014), No. 9. (May), Pages 19-21

      Extended Abstract: Climate Change: Facts and Fictions

      W.C. Rusty Riese

      [...]

      The heat content of the atmosphere has remained largely unchanged since 1995. Data prepared and compiled by a number of climate scientists illustrate the wide divergence of climate model projections from what has been occurring: the climate has not been warming any more than would be expected as the world continues to move out of the Little Ice Age.

      [...]

      http://archives.datapages.com/data/H...mate+change%22

      [/QUOTE]

      The models demonstrate that the anthropogenic component has to be minuscule compared to the natural component...
      From Remote Sensing Systems [with my commentary]:
      Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:
      • Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).

        [All of the warming occurred in one step-shift in the late 1990's.]

      • Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.

        [Only because climate models are programmed to do so. The models are programmed with very high sensitivities to CO2. Then they are paramaterized (fudged) with assumptions about albedo effects of past anthropogenic aerosol emissions in order to retrocast past temperature changes. The climate models almost totally fail to incorporate cloud albedo effects and natural climate oscillations.This is why they lack predictive skill.


      • The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

        [Yep. Most of the warming is occurring at night and in the coldest air masses in the Northern Hemisphere.]



      But....
      • The climate has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.
      [Because the models lack predictive skill.]


      To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below. Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008. In each plot, the thick black line is the measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century.

      […]



      http://images.remss.com/figures/clim...pare_globe.png


      […]

      http://www.remss.com/research/climate

      RSS shows no warming since 1997...



      In fairness, the models have demonstrated precision. They precisely miss the mark to the high side...



      The first modern AGW model from 1988 has essentially proven that the climate is relatively insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. Subsequent models have confirmed that the Gorebots are wrong...




      James Hansen, formerly of NASA-GISS and now a full time criminal, first proved that AGW was wrong 25 years ago and then delivered an endless stream of idiotic alarmism.

      Back in 1988, he published a climate model that, when compared to his own temperature data, substantially disproves AGW...






      GISTEMP has tracked the Hansen scenario in which a greent@rd utopia was achieved more than a decade ago.

      Hansen's model used an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 4.2°C per doubling of pre-industrial CO2. The IPCC "consensus" is 3.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS is 2.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS, consistent with the observations, is 1.0°C. Recent papers have concluded that solar forcing has been underestimated by a factor of six and CO2 forcing is much lower than the so-called consensus estimate.

      "Scenario B" might be the most relevant prediction because CH4 and CFC's have followed closest to the "C" trajectory, while CO2 has tracked "A".

      If you look at the model results, there is little difference between "A" and "B" in 2010...



      Hansen describes "A" as "business as usual" and "B" as a more realistic or "Lite" version of "business as usual." "C" represents a world in which mankind essentially undiscovered fire in the year 2000. The actual satellite-measured temperature change from 1988 to last month tracks below "C", apart from the monster ENSO of 1998...



      Since CO2 tracked "A", CH4 and CFC's tracked "C" and temperature tracked below "C"... The atmosphere is far less sensitive to CO2 than Hansen modeled... The atmosphere was essentially insensitive to the ~50ppmv rise in CO2 over the last 24 years.

      Hansen may have inadvertantly provided solid support for this "inconvenient truth."

      The Gorebots have already proven that AGW is wrong - Part Quatre: A model of failure.

      Let's give Gorebot Prime, Jimbo Hansen, a pass. His 1988 model reflected old science and old computers and surely the models have gotten better over the last quarter-century... Or not.
      STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means

      June 6th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

      [...]



      In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.

      In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.

      It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.

      If the observations in the above graph were on the UPPER (warm) side of the models, do you really believe the modelers would not be falling all over themselves to see how much additional surface warming they could get their models to produce?

      Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change.

      [...]

      Dr. Roy Spencer
      [Assuming whiny Gorebot voice]... Oh... That tricky Roy Spencer. That's just the tropics and it goes way back to 1979... That's unfair! The science is verified! The models are right!

      Or not... The following CMIP5 model was parameterized (fudged) to accurately retrocast HadCRUT4 from 1950-2004.



      Eight years and out! Within eight years, the observed temperature is on the verge of dropping out of the lower error band.

      This model from Kaufmann et al., 2011 simulated natural and anthropogenic (primarily CO2) forcing mechanisms from 1999-2008. Natural forcing won by a score of 3-1.



      Global temperature changes consistently track the model scenarios in which anthropogenic CO2 is remaining steady or barely increasing.

      If AGW was science, it would be the equivalent of the Ptolemaic solar system. The fact that it remains the paradigm proves that it is nothing but politics.
      Attached Files
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        No one I know states that fossil fuels are in anyway as bad as tobacco. The FF industries are just using the same tactics to delay change to cleaning up their act, as this will cost money.


        No one is stating that we could or should eliminate FF use. We just need to be smarter and use alternatives when we can, like cycling or walking as examples. Smaller cars for commuting is also sensible. I can go on.

        You don't like the way I've presented the oil companies because you cannot deny the truth.

        Either AGW is true or AGW is false. If AGW is true, we need to take note.

        If AGW is false why haven't the FF industries done something about it? They have had the best part of 30 years since Margaret Thatchers speech to the UN, and nearly 10 years since Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, to highlight publicly that AGW is false. If AGW is false, these industries are truly incompetent. However, you don't supply more than 80% of the planets energy needs per year if you are incompetent, so logic dictates AGW is true.
        So all we have to do is nationalize all industry and the world will be a paradize? Hasn't that been tried before with enormous environmental degradation and human misery?
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • TD is on my ignore list, actually the only one who is, so I can't respond directly to his reply.

          What I can state is that my logic still stands.

          AGW is either real or false.

          If it is false like The Doc clearly states, why have the fossil fuel industries been so clearly incompetent to follow through on his work. Why have they been so pathetic in their response to additional business costs? Their Profit and Loss sheets must be really embarrassing to their shareholders. They are losing money because they have not used The Docs input on this forum?

          FF industries have been so impotent concerning AGW that they have had to employed Putin to tell the truth? We've all seen the vid. The FF industries have more than enough money to reveal the truth.

          Given the fact that they have also had more than enough subsidies to counter AGW, why have they not done so? Do they really have that moronic level of intellect?

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6730946.html

          AGW is either true or those associated with the FF industry are morons, and the latter is certainly not true.
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            So all we have to do is nationalize all industry and the world will be a paradize? Hasn't that been tried before with enormous environmental degradation and human misery?
            What are blathering on about?
            I'm right wing if you don't mind and don't believe in unnecessary government input when the private sector can usually do better.

            The problem with the private sector is when businesses gain monopolistic power, such as the US medical system. For the same level of overall care as W European countries, a Republican report found that the cost per patient was a round three times as much. This is because monopolies do not even have to pretend to care about its customers, just their shareholders, and they control the price.

            Back to the point on the climate, AGW is either true or the FF industries have revealed a staggering lack of intellect in disseminating the truth. Do you really believe these industries are that incompetent and moronic?
            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
              TD is on my ignore list, actually the only one who is, so I can't respond directly to his reply.

              What I can state is that my logic still stands.

              [...]
              Your "logic" is a false dilemma logical fallacy. On top of that, your method of reasoning through your own logical fallacy is based on nothing but your own ideological and ignorance of how businesses function.

              From construction through reasoning, your false dilemma fallacy involves nothing of an even remotely scientific nature.
              Last edited by The Doctor; 07 Feb 16, 07:29.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • If the Petroleum industry has rising costs due to environmental legislation the coal industry has it far worse.

                http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=24472
                http://www.governing.com/gov-data/en...gulations.html

                The libertarian Niskanen Centre has produced an interesting report on the issue the coal industry faces, and how to face the challenges.

                https://niskanencenter.org/wp-conten...ary-19-1-1.pdf

                Now if AGW was false, the coal industry would publicly state so, and get rid of some extremely costly red tape. They haven't.

                https://www.uschamber.com/regulation...al-regulations

                Either AGW is true, or just about the whole of the coal industry and their shareholders are total morons in not publicly denying AGW.
                I don't think the latter alternative is feasible.
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                Comment


                • The start of common sense?

                  The start of common sense?
                  Supreme Court blocks Obama carbon emissions plan

                  WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama by blocking federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the centerpiece of his administration's strategy to combat climate change.
                  In a highly unusual move, the court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to grant a request made by 27 states and various companies and business groups to block the administration's Clean Power Plan. The move means the regulations will not be in effect while litigation continues over whether their legality.
                  The plan was designed to lower carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels. It is the main tool for the United States to meet the emissions reduction target it pledged at U.N. climate talks in Paris in December.
                  ...
                  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sup...V2P?li=BBnb7Kz
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    The start of common sense?
                    Supreme Court blocks Obama carbon emissions plan

                    WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama by blocking federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the centerpiece of his administration's strategy to combat climate change.
                    In a highly unusual move, the court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to grant a request made by 27 states and various companies and business groups to block the administration's Clean Power Plan. The move means the regulations will not be in effect while litigation continues over whether their legality.
                    The plan was designed to lower carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels. It is the main tool for the United States to meet the emissions reduction target it pledged at U.N. climate talks in Paris in December.
                    ...
                    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sup...V2P?li=BBnb7Kz
                    Bold is mine.

                    From Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN0VI2A0
                    The states, led by coal producer West Virginia and oil producer Texas, and several major business groups in October launched the legal effort seeking to block the Obama administration's plan. The states said the emissions curbs would have a devastating impact on their economies.

                    West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey described the Supreme Court action on Tuesday as a "historic and unprecedented victory" over the EPA.

                    Tom Donahue, chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the high court stay "will ensure that America will not be forced to make costly and irreversible implementation decisions based upon an unprecedented regulation until judicial review is complete."
                    Again bold is mine.

                    Now if the states and businesses could prove AGW was false, the conservative supreme court would not have to vote against the bill on procedural terms, but dismiss it because the science was junk.

                    Why have the relevant entities failed to do so?
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      Now if the states and businesses could prove AGW was false, the conservative supreme court would not have to vote against the bill on procedural terms, but dismiss it because the science was junk.

                      Why have the relevant entities failed to do so?
                      Now, if the federal government, a party to this lawsuit could find unbiased evidence it was true that they weren't tied to through money or political influence it'd be settled in their favor...

                      The states really don't need to prove a negative. The feds need to prove it is happening and do so with evidence they have no legal ties to. Good luck them doing that...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Now, if the federal government, a party to this lawsuit could find unbiased evidence it was true that they weren't tied to through money or political influence it'd be settled in their favor...

                        The states really don't need to prove a negative. The feds need to prove it is happening and do so with evidence they have no legal ties to. Good luck them doing that...

                        Politicians can be corrupt? Does it matter if they are left or right?

                        I believe all successful politicians to be corrupt to a degree.
                        This was almost certainly true of Winston Churchill as an example.

                        In this case, the vote was political. When all Republicans vote one way, and all the Democrats vote another, the actual issue is probably lost.
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • I put this here because of the source: Scientific American

                          http://www.scientificamerican.com/re...mate-refugees/

                          This month's issue includes an article by freelance writer and photojournalist John Wendle titled: Syria's Climate Refugees.

                          Now, Scientific American is supposed to be a reasonably authoritative science magazine. To publish an article by a writer "climate change" who has no particular credentials, is rather ludicrous. But, the article is too.

                          Mr. Wendle uses as his evidence of this a single article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA along with interviews with Syrian refugee farmers who he purports substantiate his claims that they are "Climate Refugees."

                          On the whole, it is a sad indictment of the politicization of science when it comes to this subject.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            I put this here because of the source: Scientific American

                            http://www.scientificamerican.com/re...mate-refugees/

                            This month's issue includes an article by freelance writer and photojournalist John Wendle titled: Syria's Climate Refugees.

                            Now, Scientific American is supposed to be a reasonably authoritative science magazine. To publish an article by a writer "climate change" who has no particular credentials, is rather ludicrous. But, the article is too.

                            Mr. Wendle uses as his evidence of this a single article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA along with interviews with Syrian refugee farmers who he purports substantiate his claims that they are "Climate Refugees."

                            On the whole, it is a sad indictment of the politicization of science when it comes to this subject.

                            There was a severe drought in Syria, its no more different than saying latifundia helped cause civil war in the late Roman Republic.

                            http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-drought-study

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                              There was a severe drought in Syria, its no more different than saying latifundia helped cause civil war in the late Roman Republic.

                              http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-drought-study
                              Okay, but that doesn't translate into "Climate refugees" as the article suggests... Particularly when the article relies heavily on the anecdotal evidence of Syrian farmers.

                              Comment


                              • Syrians are "climate refugees" just as much as the US retirees who flock to Florida and Arizona are. Which means, "NOT!"

                                The phrase "climate refugee" didn't exist before Al Gore invented AGW. The implication is that climate refugees are fleeing the effects of anthropogenic climate change, not just unfavorable climatic conditions. To my knowledge, no one ever referred to the Anasazi, Mayan or any other Precolumbian culture as climaterefugees, even though unfavorable climatic conditions caused the collapse of their civilizations and forced the survivors to become refugees.

                                Even if drought played a role in causing the civil war, Syrian refugees aren't fleeing unfavorable climatic conditions. They are fleeing the civil war.

                                A PNAS paper claims that the 2007-2010 drought might have contributed to the unrest in Syria and the authors' model indicates that warmer temperatures made the probability of a 3-yr drought twice as high as it otherwise would have been. Since warmer temperatures are caused by SUV's...

                                The aridification of Syria began long before Al Gore invented Gorebal Warming. The region has been drying out since the Medieval Warm Period.



                                http://m.pnas.org/content/109/10/3862.full

                                Even if the late 20th century warming, increased the probability of the 2007-2010 drought (unsubstantiated) and the drought contributed to the civil war (speculation), there is no evidence that anthropogenic activities were a significant factor in the warming or the drought or that the drought caused the civil war and the refugees.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X