• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's Time to Confront Climate Extremism

longview said:
There was a publication a few years ago, about error accumulation, I am still looking for it,
but I found an article that lays out some of the errors.
Flawed Climate Models | Hoover Institution
There is a reason that the uncertainty cone of hurricanes is hundreds of miles wide at 5 days out.
The error accumulates, so the uncertainty of step one is added to step two, and so on.
For hurricanes this gives a few days of warming if a storm is likely to hit your area, but a week out
nothing is for sure.
Here is one of the articles on the topic,
Frontiers | Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections | Earth Science
Click to expand...

The Hoover Institute is a rightwing think tank. You couldn't find any actual science citations?
 
ataraxia said:
That's not what the scientists say. Do you know why they don't say that?

Find out and let us know.
Click to expand...
The errors are still there! The range is the stated range, and not knowing the result of a single decade,
will make the error compound on itself.
If the scientists doing the modeling do not admit it, they are fooling themselves.
Denial is not a river in Egypt!
 
ataraxia said:
The Arrhenius equation, the foundation of much climate change science, is highly reproducible and based on very detailed observations. After more than a century, it is still used by engineers to this day for all sorts of day-to-day applications.
Click to expand...
Um, The Arrhenius equation is not the same as the equation he came up with for CO2 forcing!
Our modern version is 5.35 X ln(CO2high/CO2low) and is based on 2CO2 forcing an imbalance of 3.71W/m2.
 
ataraxia said:
The Hoover Institute is a rightwing think tank. You couldn't find any actual science citations?
Click to expand...
That is why the second citation is a publication.
 
ataraxia said:
He's an economist. How many science classes do you think he has ever taken?
Click to expand...

Environmental economics is listed among his primary research areas. His thing is statistics, and his central critique of much climate science is that its practitioners attempt to use statistical tools with which they are not competent. That is how he and Steve McIntyre debunked the Hockey Stick, and how he has knocked a hole in Santer's paper too.

Other statisticians have offered the same fundamental criticism.

[h=3]McShane , Wyner : A statistical analysis of multiple ...[/h]projecteuclid.org › euclid.aoas
Zb5UxYgNT1yP1A8MhUIPTs94qi2vX6vwH 8khNXyXnVgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==







by BB McShane - ‎2011 - ‎Cited by 88 - ‎Related articles
Predicting historic temperatures based on tree rings, ice cores, and other natural proxies is a difficult endeavor. The relationship between proxies and ...
 
Last edited:

An autopsy of the climate policy debate’s corpse

Reposted from The Fabius Maximus website By Larry Kummer, Editor / 12 February 2020 Summary: The climate policy debate ran for 30 years but produced little action (it ranks #17 of the public’s top 18 concerns). Now it has died. The autopsy reveals not just who killed it but also disturbing insights about America. This…
 
Down goes Arrhenius.

[h=2]Physics Professor: CO2’s 0.5°C Impact After Rising To 700 ppm Is So Negligible It’s ‘Effectively Unmeasurable’[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 13. February 2020
[h=4]A new study (Stallinga, 2020) assesses the climate sensitivity to rising CO2 concentrations is just 0.0014°C per ppm. [/h]Dr. Peter Stallinga has published a comprehensive analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. He finds an inconsequential role for CO2.
Doubling CO2 from 350 to 700 ppm yields a warming of less than 0.5°C (500 mK).
Feedbacks to warming are likely negative, as adding CO2 may only serve to speed up natural return-to-equilibrium processes.
As for absorption-reemission perturbation from CO2, “there is nothing CO2 would add to the current heat balance in the atmosphere.”
Low-CO2-Climate-Sensitivity-Stallinga-2020.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Stallinga, 2020[/h]
A portion of Dr. Stallinga’s paper worth highlighting – which he mentions only in passing – refers to the early history of the Earth’s greenhouse effect paradigm.
K. Ångström receives little attention as a pioneer of the conceptualization that warming and cooling resul from radiative imbalances within a planetary greenhouse effect.
About 120 years ago, Ångström (1900) contradicted the oft-cited Arrhenius (1896) – the atmospheric physicist referred to by proponents of anthropogenic global warming.
Ångström suggested Earth’s greenhouse effect is already saturated in its current (1900) state, and therefore increasing CO2 will have “no effect whatsoever” on climate (Stallinga, 2020).
Ångström’s conclusions were largely ignored.
Angstrom-1900-rejects-CO2-greenhouse-effect-Stallinga-2020-1.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Arrhenius, 1896 and Stallinga, 2020[/h]
 
longview said:
The errors are still there! The range is the stated range, and not knowing the result of a single decade,
will make the error compound on itself.
If the scientists doing the modeling do not admit it, they are fooling themselves.
Denial is not a river in Egypt!
Click to expand...

So are you confident the error range falls completely outside the potential danger zone?
 
Jack Hays said:
Professor Ross McKitrick is sounding the alarm. Climate extremism ascended to new influence in 2019. Adherents of sound science will have to take up the fight in earnest if rationality is to prevail in 2020.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
We must fight climate extremists before they upend society

[FONT=&]Start learning the deep details of the science and economics instead of letting extremists dictate what you’re allowed to think or say. Guest opinion by Ross Mckitrick Last year was the year the climate issue took a sharp turn towards extremism. Let’s hope 2020 is the year sanity makes a comeback. There have long been three…
[/FONT]
Continue reading →

[FONT=&]Last year was the year the climate issue took a sharp turn towards extremism. Let’s hope 2020 is the year sanity makes a comeback.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]There have long been three groups occupying the climate issue. To avoid pejoratives, I will call them A, B and C.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The A group are the doubters. They don’t believe greenhouse gases (GHGs) do much harm and they don’t support expensive climate-policy interventions. If we must choose between climate policy and the continued use of inexpensive fossil energy, they readily choose the latter.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The C group think the opposite; they fear a climate catastrophe, they foresee a crisis and they want urgent action, regardless of cost, to stop it.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The B group are in the middle. They believe, or say they believe, that GHG emissions are a problem and must be reduced. They are vague on the question of how much and when, but in general they try to balance environmental goals with the provision of inexpensive energy and robust economic growth.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The leaders in business, government and the bureaucracy tend to be in this group. They have spent the last 20 years verbally acknowledging the concerns of group C and even borrowing their slogans, while quietly letting the A agenda mostly win out, which the underlying economics pretty much necessitates.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]This uneasy compromise fell apart last year. . . .

[/FONT][FONT=&]Climate and energy policy has fallen into the hands of a worldwide movement that openly declares its extremism. The would-be moderates on this issue have pretended for 20 years they could keep the status quo without having to fight for it. Those days are over.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

There is plenty of reason to doubt the scare of doom and gloom over climate extremism.
Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
 
ataraxia said:
So are you confident the error range falls completely outside the potential danger zone?
Click to expand...
I am confident, but not because the models have large cones of uncertainty.
The systematic errors, cover why the models could be running hot.
As far as potential danger, we can take the mid to high end off the table, the data does not support
feedbacks that would cause between 3 and 4.5 C of warming, for 2XCO2.
 
ataraxia said:
What are your thoughts on this:

Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy
Click to expand...

I think it's a seven-year-old blog post on a site run by a cartoonist.


Climate Models Have Not Improved in 50 Years

Guest “how can he write this with straight face?” by David Middleton Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warmingBy Warren Cornwall Dec. 4, 2019 Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the…

December 6, 2019 in Climate Models.
 
"Too often, science is manipulated to fulfil a political agenda.
Government agencies, too often, betray the public trust by violating principles of good science in a desire to achieve a political goal.
Public policy decisions that are based on bad science impose enormous economic costs on all aspects of society."

Who said this? Was it a current conservative group fighting climate change today?

No. These are proposed "talking points" memos, produced in 1993 by the tobacco industry to help any industry fight legislation that responded to scientific findings- in this case it was those linking smoking to health problems. But hey, it seems to work well when recycled for any industry, doesn't it? There's even stuff here on how the pesticide industry was using these talking points to show why the science behind the dangers of pesticides was "pseudo-scinece"..

The documents were obtained and made public during the court trials against the tobacco industry in the 1990s and early 2000s. I recommend you look through it. The talking points for climate change seem to be taken verbatim from it:
Industry Documents Library
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
"Too often, science is manipulated to fulfil a political agenda.[/QUOTES]

That is completely and utterly wrong. Interestingly what you stated is far too often used for political agenda. Politicians need to stick to their jobs and leave scientists to research and recommendation on climate change.

The fact is it exists. Its a concern and action needs to be taken.
Click to expand...
 
I find it amusing that all these 'scientists' suddenly come out on the forums pretending to have all the research and knowledge to deny climate change.

I would say this....leave it to the experts that is the scientists
 
goldkam said:
ataraxia said:
"Too often, science is manipulated to fulfil a political agenda.[/QUOTES]

That is completely and utterly wrong. Interestingly what you stated is far too often used for political agenda. Politicians need to stick to their jobs and leave scientists to research and recommendation on climate change.

The fact is it exists. Its a concern and action needs to be taken.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. That was actually a quote from the tobacco industry to try to deny the science behind the cancer/tobacco link. I think you and I are on the same side. No friendly fire please!:)
Click to expand...
 
ataraxia said:
goldkam said:
Yeah I know. That was actually a quote from the tobacco industry to try to deny the science behind the cancer/tobacco link. I think you and I are on the same side. No friendly fire please!:)
Click to expand...
In the case of AGW, it is the Government defending the low quality science of man cause climate change,
because it agrees with their political goals.
Click to expand...
 

Prank with Bernie Sanders (Stars Save the Earth #3)

Russian pranksters Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov (Vovan and Lexus) have launched the international project “Stars Save the Earth”, a project dedicated to the global problems facing humanity. The third episode of the show is a prank with US Senator Bernie Sanders. The pranksters communicate with the Presidential candidate as Greta Thunberg and her father…
 
ataraxia said:
I don’t agree with many of Sanders’ policy on climate change either. But what does that have to do with climate change science?
Click to expand...

This thread is about extremism, which is unmoored in science. Sanders's views are extremist.
 
jpn said:
It's hard to believe you're looking at this issue in good faith when you so blithely mischaracterize what the various scientific groups actually say.

International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
Click to expand...

If human activities are responsible for most of the warming occurring in a certain period, then someone please tell me what the world is doing about China and India building hundreds of coal-fired power plants now that there will be more pollution in the air and possible more warming of the climate.
Are we going to force China and India to stop generating coal-generated electricity which is necessary to put people out of poverty in their respective rural and urban areas?
 
jaypatriot said:
If human activities are responsible for most of the warming occurring in a certain period, then someone please tell me what the world is doing about China and India building hundreds of coal-fired power plants now that there will be more pollution in the air and possible more warming of the climate.
Are we going to force China and India to stop generating coal-generated electricity which is necessary to put people out of poverty in their respective rural and urban areas?
Click to expand...

It will not be necessary for us to force China and India to do anything. Eventually, their own people will force them to take environmental considerations into account for reasons of human health, just as they have in the western world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom