Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


older | 1 | .... | 4090 | 4091 | (Page 4092) | 4093 | 4094 | .... | 4134 | newer

    0 0

    MM, the people who use CAGW never define what catastrophic means to them. If they did, and it was 4 C of warming or 1.5 meters of sea-level rise, it would be a debating point on solid ground because many would say that is catastrophic and is within AGW limits too. However, it is likely that they define catastrophic as the level below which no action is required, which it works out better for them not to define.

    0 0

    Jim D, Who is accusing who of money grubbing and fraud? Did you not read Paul Krugman's opinion piece in the NYTimes, "The Depravity of Climate-Change Denial"? Who is accused of selling out to fossil fuel interests by creating "doubt," as if science should be doubt-free? Krugman's piece, a depraved pile of writing, comes straight out of Oreskes and her implication that those who oppose the consensus are evil: paid off, corrupt, part of a conspiracy originating with the tobacco strategy and the selling out of Seitz and Singer and continuing on to the present scientists who disagree with the consensus. Yet there's not a single solid shred of evidence that any scientist has been paid off to alter science in order to support the views of the oil industry: it's all speculation and assumption, smoke and mirrors. If you're not dismayed and disgusted by Oreskes' subversion of objectivity, transparency, honest debate, and opposing paradigms that are part and parcel of scientific back-and-forth, and the elevation of bias to a near-physical truth that crushes any other interpretations, then you don't understand what science is or have been blinded by the quackery that Oreskes is selling. I can disarm my critics too. I'll go around telling everyone they're paid off and don't listen to them. It's called "poisoning the well," and it's about smearing your opponent so badly that you convince people they're wrong even before any argument begins. That, in a nutshell, is the sum of Oreskes' sound and fury. The seduction is a wonderful trick, disguised as an enlightened pulling back of the curtain on another trick. Oreskes has educated us into non-science. And ... I just realized how much this is cast in a religious frame (hello? There's our narrative again!) The deniers are evil and kin with the devil. It isn't said explicitly anywhere but it's implied all over the place: Krugman's depraved beings, perhaps? After all, he does say that denial "is evil on a whole different level." No one is directly accusing Curry or Christy or Lindzen of being evil, yet ... there it is! That's powerful stuff. Sophisticated PR silently backed by banks who stand to make trillions off carbon trading? Or just coincidence?

    0 0

    <blockquote> Domino effect of tipping points [link] </blockquote> i.e., reinforcing positive feedback leading to a tipping point and runaway, unremitting, irreversible, accelerating, unmitigable, irredeemable catastrophic... <i>climate change</i>?

    0 0

    https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/the-depravity-of-climate-change-denial/ Worth reading. Why the 100% correlation between being an elected Republican politician and denialism? Nothing to do with science of course.

    0 0

    […] of similar catastrophe claims predicted from overpopulation and running out of natural resources. The catastrophe narrative, (Climate, Etc., November 14, 2018) discusses why environmental catastrophes are so enduring and […]

    0 0

    <a href="http://climate-dynamics.org/separating-physically-distinct-influences-on-pacific-sea-surface-temperature-variability/" rel="nofollow"><b>Separating physically distinct influence on Pacific sea surface temperature variability</b>[link]</a> NOAA PDO is shutdown and JIASO PDO no longer updates monthly, but there are hints the December PDO may be going up: https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.12.27.2018.gif

    0 0

    Jim D, oh so only the experts are allowed to decide our fate? What complete arrogance on your part.

    0 0

    So, like Poirot is better than the police, you are better than the statistician? Geoff

    0 0

    What utter tripe. There is no doubt that the proponents of "climate science" and renewable energy are lining their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. Our efforts will not alter the trajectory of the climate but will most assuredly push the poor and middle class deeper into debt while enriching the elite.

    0 0

    Or the 100% correlation between being a radical leftist and believing in man-caused- climate change! You are completely devoid of logic and reason, which explains your penchant for emotional drivel.

    0 0

    Would he prefer daily data to monthly averages to annual averages? Ask him why because I guarantee no one can explain what he is saying.

    0 0

    The Dems tend to believe the science. It would be a similar thing with evolution and Republican electees, but I think less of them are Creationists than Denialists because Denialism is a qualification requirement, and it is not clear whether Bible-thumping is.

    0 0

    The experts inform the policymakers, and the policymakers decide. They are elected by you and funded by special interests, so it could go off track.

    0 0

    That's conspiracy theory 4, variant a.

    0 0

    JCH, thank you for the link. It links as well to the freely available published paper.

    0 0

    Jim D: <i>MM, the people who use CAGW never define what catastrophic means to them. </i> You provided a reasonable definition of catastrophic global warming. Hence my question, slightly revised, Do you still claim that "CAGW" is a straw man? Never?

    0 0

    <blockquote>the models underestimated the loss rate in the previous IPCC report</blockquote> First underestimated and now overestimate. A clear example that models don't work.

    0 0

    <blockquote>The only way to attack science is to produce better science</blockquote> BS. It is enough to point that the current favored hypothesis doesn't match the observations.

    0 0

    Jim D: “…as far as I know people have not said catastrophe within decades…” Say what? In previous posts, which as far as I recall you claim to have read, I provided many examples of presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and many businesses and orgs (and some non-mainstream scientists) propagating the catastrophe narrative, aka a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, which scenario they also claim is supported by mainstream science. And you agree that mainstream science doesn’t provide such support. “…what you mean by decades and how serious you need it to be to count as catastrophic…” I don’t ‘need it to be’ anything, and I’m not propagating the narrative. The presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and many businesses and orgs (and some non-mainstream scientists) are doing this. So it’s what *they* mean, so maybe you could ask them. Yet as you point out when skeptics sometimes make the same error, it’s vague and not scientifically defined, enabling the worst fears to be emotively raised within people’s minds. (Decades is typically expressed directly or indirectly to be anywhere from about 2+ to 8, i.e. within the 21st century). “…which again I emphasize is a personal judgment…” And which again I point out is nothing to do with personal judgement, because a) these presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and businesses and orgs are speaking in their official capacities and hence are not merely expressing personal opinions, so their propagation will rightly not be understood as personal opinions (which no national or global leader should be giving upon such an important topic anyhow), and b) they underwrite their propagated catastrophe narrative by saying that it is supported by ‘the’ science, so absolutely not promoted as a personal opinion, but as the judgement of (mainstream) science. “We don’t do thought police here.” As we went through in detail last time around, this is absolutely nothing to do with restricting freedom of expression. Presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and many businesses and orgs (and some non-mainstream scientists) are propagating a false narrative, namely that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent (decades) global climate catastrophe. And you agree that the science doesn’t support this, unless you’ve now jumped ship and cast your lot in with the (non-mainstream) position that opposes the IPCC, as Matthew suggests, hence now believing CAGW narrative to be valid? Either way, the narrative is still not one supported by mainstream science, and to point this out is not an issue of free speech. It is never an issue of free speech to point out that which is false; but it is such an issue if voices attempting to point out falsity are suppressed. ‘There is no objective measure of what is catastrophic…’ Absolutely! Which is why presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and many businesses and orgs (and some non-mainstream scientists) should not be propagating a message of high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, also in the most emotive terms, as this could never lead to proper interpretation. And indeed when various qualifiers such as ‘end of life / humanity / civilisation’ or whatever are sometimes thrown in too, this is even more explicitly wrong. ‘If they have a lower bar than you…’ I don’t have or claim any specific bar, and per above what the exampled a-listers are claiming could not possibly be interpreted properly by the publics of these presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and many businesses and orgs. Your objections to skeptic use of the term (i.e. when deployed to describe mainstream science) is that it is inappropriate for this, plus anyhow has no definition that could allow proper interpretation; this is identically true for the propagation from all those authority sources, yet inconsistently you continue to give them a free pass for this propagation.

    0 0

    “This matches with observed variations in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (Wills et al., 2019b), leaving open the possibility that this Pacific multidecadal variability is driven by the AMO. However, another possibility is that the Pacific LFC 2 and the AMO are both part of a global response to variations in climate forcing over the 20th century, such as from anthropogenic aerosol or stratospheric ozone changes. Whatever the physical mechanisms, this mode of variability and/or change is interesting for its possible modulation of the amplitude of ENSO. Large amplitude El Niño events (marked on the x-axis of Fig. 2) did not occur between 1920 and 1970, when LFC 2 was in its positive phase.” “.....possibility......driven by the AMO.” Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. Pretty much sums up most of climate science. Trying to apply a logical human construct to wildly chaotic unprecedented undeterministic mechanisms, can still just leave you with your......fairy dust in your hand. What ever floats your boat. We can apply all the statistics to the past and still be wildly wrong. But I do like the idea that the AMO could be a dominatrix....not a novel idea.

older | 1 | .... | 4090 | 4091 | (Page 4092) | 4093 | 4094 | .... | 4134 | newer