Don M, yes, and a few hundred estimates from models and paleoclimate to observations, since then have been in the range too, but not narrowed it down, which is why I was asking how the skeptics are so certain.
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by GaryM
Don Monfort,
” I just wonder why you can see through the climate scam, but you don’t see that your crowd uses the same tactics from the same playbook to impose on us their solutions for a wide range of pet progressive issues.”
That is a a fascinating phenomenon I have thought about for years. For every David Horowitz who makes a complete change from progressive to conservative, there are dozens who can do so to only a limited extent. Christopher Hitchens being a great example.
The reason? Progressivism appeals to vanity. By being a progressive you are one of the elite, because the elite tell you so. It becomes who you are. That is why I always say progressives are progressives first and everything else second.
That sense of superiority is really hard to give up. You spend your adult life convinced you are part of an intellectual vanguard. Everyone you know thinks the same way you do. You are taught from pre-school on not to even listen to counter-arguments, let alone actually think about them.
Then one day, you come across an issue and you just can’t swallow the cognitive dissonance on that issue any more. For some it is climate, for others like Kirsten Powers it is abortion.
So what do you do? Do you rethink all the issues you learned from the same people who taught you that one issue? What happens if you do that?
You end up admitting to yourself at the very least that you have been wrong on virtually every major policy issue of your lifetime. Not only were you wrong, but those stupid conservatives you ridiculed and laughed at, the ones who made you so certain of your own superiority, were right.
Not many people can do that. It takes real humility. And funny enough, it also takes confidence in yourself. You have to learn to value principles over your own sense of self.
And THAT in my opinion is what stops those who finally engage in critical analysis on one issue, from engaging in it on all the others. It’s also why so many who flirt with critical thinking often end up giving up and scurrying back to the progressive tribe entirely.
It’s so much easier to stop short and declare yourself an “independent” or “moderate.” That way you can accommodate your new found realization regarding the one issue, with the added benefit that you can now feel superior to both progressives and conservatives. Which was why you were a progressive in the first place.
↧
Comment on Open thread by GaryM
It’s George Bush’s fault.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by David Young
Josh, You are trying to establish a moral equivalency that is not correct. The public discourse is very asymmetrical in this regard. People like Mann, Gore, Holdren, are excused and their obvious errors are ignored. No demonization of Judith is beyond the pale however. Judith continues to be very mild by comparison. This episode just confirms an earlier track record including climate gate, Bertstrom, Peilke Jr., and many others. It is really climate McCarthyism and a shameful track record.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Don Monfort
Which skeptics are certain, jimmy? Can you name a hundred?
The skeptics typically don’t have a wider range, because they don’t add in a grab bag full of dire assumptions and the-sky-is-falling tipping points. Skeptics are skeptical of assumptions. Get it now, jimmy?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by ordvic
Bob,
Thanks for the sst update and the nice graph. It looks like were in a tighter (less anomolous) formation right now than the recent past.
↧
Comment on Open thread by nottawa rafter
Wub
Keep up the tradition of the warmists and attack the person instead of the science. Of course that is why you are losing the public relations war. When the paper comes out then show us what you are made of and discredit the work. If you can.
Sounds like you have P-envy. Along with his PhD , he has numerous other degrees. When will you ever learn what science is all about.
↧
Comment on Open thread by ordvic
Web,
I see no reason not to read both. Thanks for the info and I’ll look for the that future info when posted.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by GaryM
Michael Mouse,
Hayek is excellent on political principles as far as they reflect maintaining a free market. But as a libertarian, his mis-understanding of conservatism is no different from others.
If you want to understand conservatism, you don’t rely solely on critiques by those who reject it.
Every comment here has been a reflection of the modern cultural rejection of objective morality that has been actively promoted by the left for decades.
The truth is, no one believes it.
As you note in part, everyone wants to legislate morality. Even libertarians, who just redefine their moral precepts as something else.
I am still waiting for someone to point out to me when there was ever a libertarian, free market state in actual existence, that endured. It’s like asking a progressive to point out an economically successful socialist system.
I would also settle for an explanation of how libertarians would deal with the social pathologies I described, which are a direct, proximate result of the lack of enforcement of moral standards. We have the libertarian experiment writ large. It’s in the effectively lawless inner cities of this country. Drugs, the devolution of marriage, unrestricted promiscuity, abortion on demand, and the results aren’t pretty.
Someone explain how libertarians will deal with that. And when you’re done, explain how a free market system will continue in a country where the majority are dependent on government because of those pathologies.
But no, all you get here is “you can’t impose draconian old testament law like a western Taliban.” In other words, those who are arguing they are libertarians, or moderates, make the same kind of arguments from ignorance you get when lolwot and WHUT write about skeptical arguments in climate science.
And for the same reasons.
↧
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by Mickey Mouse
BTW – It’s so long and thanks for all the fish. Humanity is no longer the third smartest species on the planet – webby is bringing the average down.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by Mickey Mouse
It only works because CO2 forcing over a short period is small and most of the variability is caused by ENSO. Something that was recognized well before the ascension of webby.
It will diverge because he has got the parameters wrong. That’s why he won’t show this.
webby’s cartoon science is not competent and not interesting in the least.
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.
This idea is the most modern – and powerful – in climate science and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond. A mechanical analogy might set the scene.
Science has got it right – at least in essence. It’s just not the cartoon science webby understands.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by JCH
Ragnaar – the negative phase of the PDO that bottom out around 1920 lasted at most 10 years. I think the cooling phase we recently were in lasted about the same length of time. What is important is the change of direction in the index as that signals whether or not the impetus is progressively adding to warming or adding to cooling.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by JD Ohio
Joshua “In addition to standards of living 100 years from now in an absolute sense, difference in a relative sense between a world warmed by ACO2 compared to a world not warmed by ACO2 is also “important.” Even if overall standards are higher, that wouldn’t ensure that millions? more wouldn’t suffer in the AC02 warmed world, relatively speaking.”
A logical point you may want to take up with Hansen and his death trains. Also, I don’t think any alarmist scientists of the Mann/Hansen/Trenberth ilk have made the argument. The focus of their position is generally that the world will fall to pieces unless CO2 is drastically reduced not that the world will be better, but just not as good as it would otherwise be.
JD
↧
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by R. Gates
Skippy Mouse said:
“Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.”
—-
No one stated the control knob was linear, and in fact some n-degree polynomial model is closest, with unpredictable jumps quite likely.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Chief Skip is Wold Cup class when it comes to scoring own goals.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Mickey Mouse
Gary,
Nurturing a pluralist society in which democracy and the rule of law prevails is not the same thing as admitting that a moral equivalency exists between the likes of Joshua and a man of light.
‘There is a light within a man of light, and it gives light to the whole world. If it does not give light, there is darkness.’ the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas
But you have misunderstood the fundamental liberal enlightenment principles of Hayek. By all means impose laws by whatever moral compass you choose and by whatever arts of persuasion you posses – if you can.
No one – btw – posits government at less than about 25% of GDP except extreme nutcases and progressives to frighten children.
Cheers
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Robert I Ellison
I am going to stop Michael Mouse – the jokes wearing thin anyway.
I am just disappointed that no one asked whether he was a Mann or a mouse.
↧
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by R. Gates
Mouse Skippy,
It’s tough when you score an own goal. You have to quickly try to rationalize and finger point and try and create some illusion to hide the fact that you simply shot and scored in your on goal. The potential that higher GH gas levels might actually create the conditions favorable to a more permanent La Niña state is an intriguing possibility, supported by some research. But I understand that an embarrassed own-goal scoring mouse must wave his little mouse arms and thus has no energy left for science.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by JJ
Rgates blathers:
Natural variability does indeed “work both ways”, if the metric to be used is the rather poor proxy of tropospheric surface temperature …
Tropospheric surface temperature is the metric upon which you Climate Cultists chose to base your religion, and it is the tenet upon which you have been proselytizing the weaker members of our society and upon which you have been theocratizing our state for three decades.
Now you find yourself in the midst of a decidedly Milleresque Great Disappointment, and you do what all the whacky little sects do when they get caught with their prophesies down – change the story.
If history is any guide, you’ll be better off keeping the Second Coming of the warming as a perennial promise, rather than pulling White’s tactic of claiming that it really happened already – just as predicted, only invisibly. Its really the only way to maintain a flock large enough to fleece profitably.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by Michael Mouse
dT = lamba dF
You’re really quite an underperforming camera jockey aren’t you gatesy?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
