Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[rb1957]

in your opinion it was two groups divided by science. in my opinion it's two groups divided by belief/trust in models.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

Just because you can name names in group 1, and can't name names in group 2, dosen't mean group 1 is more creadable than group 2. It means you don't know the other side of the story.

So what makes the goverment agenda more creadable than say the Koch brothers agenda? Both have something to gain and lose, so you assume the goverment is more truthful.

I still believe the truth hasen't been told, and I suspect it is somewhere inbetween.

The globe has been warming since the end of the ice age, which hasen't been explained. So you want me to believe it is human caused, and must be taxed to make it go away. Is that a truthful summary?

The only thing I am skeptical of is goverments truthfulness. And please don't list the AMA as doctors are not climate experts.

 

[rconnor]

rb1957, I don’t disagree, I think both statements are true. However, you need to know the former (science) to be able to understand the latter (models).

Ask yourself a similar question, which group do you think has a better understanding and more credibility in interpreting climate models?

Honestly, rb1957, if you don’t trust the models then why not review what NASA and NOAA have to say on the issue? Many of your concerns are discussed in detail by the most well respected, most knowledge people in the field. Why would you go to places like CATO or GWPF instead, who you know are guilty of ideological bias? The only reason is because they agree with your apriori position. That’s not being skeptical, that’s looking for validation.

Crank108, oh I know the other side – I used to be in their ranks. I’ve read the arguments. They sound reasonable but upon closer inspection, they all fall apart. It’s either cherry picked data, ignorance of the science or just flat out falsehoods. The reason why they don’t get published isn’t because of some global conspiracy, it’s because it cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.

What government agenda, cranky? NASA, NOAA, 197 national science academies – all in cahoots…for what?

You’re going to have to explain to me how any politician would benefit from enacting a carbon tax. The fossil fuel and automotive industries are two pretty huge players when it comes to campaign contributions and political influence. Furthermore, how would a carbon tax strip you of your "freedom".

Look at BC, 100% of the revenue earned from the tax went to low income families and tax CUTS for individuals and businesses (focused on low income and small business). Where is this evil conspiracy? You’re talking nonsense, utter nonsense.

 

[hokie66]

Carbon Tax = Income Redistribution. We can agree on that. But many of us don't want to redistribute income by these means, or see the benefit thereof.

 

[cranky108]

Strange? I say I don't trust the goverment or goverment sources because of politricks. And you answer by NASA, NOAA, 197 national science academies.
I thought I was somewhat plain in what I said GOVERMENT controled.

What politician would not benifit from having more money they can control? Name one (other than our local dog catcher).

Yes NASA said we must redistribute wealth to avoid unrest. Really is that what NASA is studying, and they are such experts too.
When goverment entities are quoting things that are outside there mission, they are truly corrupted and can't be trusted.

Everyday I hear more crap from our goverment, and I trust it less and less.

As I said, "I still believe the truth hasen't been told, and I suspect it is somewhere inbetween."

 

[swall]

Rconner--here in the U.S. lots of these specialized taxing schemes have popped up over the years. Lottery, with proceeds going to the schools. Off road vehicle fees with proceeds going to improved recreational opportunities. Gas tax with the monies going to road building. But follow the money. All of these special taxing schemes eventually get corrupted (by the politicians) and the money ends up going to the general revenue fund, where it gets spent on general stuff. This general spending benefits the politicians in the districts where the money is spent. So, to answer your question, this is how politcians would benefit from a carbon tax.

 

[debodine]

To me, the whole thing is a matter of lost trust and credibility. I grant you up front I am NOT a scientist by any definition, and do not have the background or training to be one if I had the desire. What I have gained over my life is an inherent mis-trust of scientific researchers, the academic system that provides their framework and the corporations/governments that provide their financing.

I have lost faith in them because enough of them have turned out to be corrupt in so many ways such as losing raw data (trust us we really did have it at one time), demanding that I must give up my earnings to "save the earth" by supporting wealth trading schemes (carbon tax credits) and sucking up ever more power and control over individuals. I no longer trust anything presented to me by modern science. That is why I am unalterably opposed to any support for taxes to correct climate change. I realize I may be a genuine Luddite with my attitude, but I don't see any way for science, academia or corporate/government entities to ever earn back my trust. I expect to go to my grave despising what science has become during my lifetime...a political football to be passed around by the uber-wealthy.

So you see, although I greatly respect the efforts of those who post charts, tables, data and links on this forum, you will not change my mind. You cannot because you are not the scientists, professors and leaders that have broken my trust. Thus you cannot restore what they have thrown away...my former belief in their willingness to do good.

 

[rconnor]

Wow…so this is what it’s like being at a Tea Party rally I guess…

…Anyways, here’s another example of the excellent, unbiased, non-ideologically driven work from Group 2.

 

[GregLocock]

But the problem is . I do know models. My somewhat complex (40000 dof) non linear time based models are correlated. They are even used to slightly extrapolate beyond their correlation (that is their purpose) That's why I am confident that a trend following model that is not physics based is not going to work for extrapolation way beyond their correlation.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
While you may find it fun to denigrate a segment of society whose fundamental goal is to drive this country towards a return to the Constitution many of us don't. Do you use the flag as a bedsheet as well?

As you should have gleaned from the contempt that your list has been held in by the poster's above you seem to be in the minority here--in fact you seem to be the only one who is willing to accept a peer-review that that finds "the computer model proves ..." to have meaning and value. For the last several months I've stopped reading your posts the first time you mention "model" or some obscure concept that only exists in adulterated data and computer models. When you post your lengthy and repetitious links I read down to the first time that the author claims that his computer model has proven something and stop. This "science" and "peer review" that you hold in such reverence and people outside of the field hold in such contempt looks to me to have the scientific value of a circle jerk.



David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[debodine]

Articles like this are easy for non-scientists like me to understand. Especially when I recall that even in some of the regions where raw data supposedly existed, it simply disappeared.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/why-the-alarmists-climate-models-are-worthless.php

 

[zdas04]

I'm watching a propaganda piece on the ice disappearing from Greenland. The show is part of a 6-part series called "Tipping Point" staring self-proclaimed "climate adventurer" Bernice Notenboom.

This is purported to be a scientific piece and the introduction said "99% of all the fresh water ice in the world is in Greenland". That didn't ring true so I checked with the USGS and the number is closer to 8% in Greenland (2.6 million km^3 vs. a total of 32 million km^3). Little things. The person doing the piece asks a scientist "is this going to be a record melt year" got a response of "it seems to be melting faster than the computer models predicted". They equated snow melt amount to a number of fully loaded Boeing 747 aircraft. I find number of airplanes to be an odd unit of measure.

The entire narration was about "tipping points", "flooded coastal regions", "Doom", "Disaster". Every time they talked to actual scientists they got weasel words (some integrity still exists in the field apparently). When she talked to modelers it was all certainty, extreme, more severe weather events (at least 3/4 of the "experts" were modelers). The show went on for one period between commercials with unsubstantiated claims that severe weather events were more common today than "ever in all history".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[DanielWW]

I've been following this thread somewhat, and I'm just going to chime in. I've got to say, some of the sentiments expressed here really surprise me considering this is an engineering forum. Especially, debodine's:

"I no longer trust anything presented to me by modern science."

Holy cow. That's such a bold, all-encompassing statement. I really hope that is a minority view among engineers. If you believe that, then it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion about almost anything. Can no-one be trusted? Is everyone corrupt? Is a discovery only valid if you yourself discover it? I understand that when discussing the findings in a field we have no experience in requires a small leap-of-faith, but its one you have to take. Otherwise there is no progress. A layman has no choice but to accept the consensus of experts. It might be an uncomfortable reality, but we can't be an expert in everything.

At the end of the day you have politicians and world leaders with no scientific background shaping policies that will have a lasting impact on the world. If they can't base their decisions on scientific consensus and the opinions of respected scientific bodies, what do they have left? Gut-feelings? Blog-posts and internet forums? Like it or not, modern science the best thing we have.

 

[rb1957]

"what do they have left?" ... what they started with ... lobbists and special interest groups.

"Can no-one be trusted?" ... consider the much vaulted peer review process. this allowed Mann to publish his hockey stick graph in time for the IPCC meeting and the rest is history. It doesn't matter that his research is a crock, and proven by McIntyre ... you get the same rest with a white noise input; the spin was spun. It doesn't matter IMHO that other researchers have produced the same result ... they could well be using the same hokum process (clearly they have to, if they're starting with the same data).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[AELLC]

I don't have time to read all these posts -

What are the global percentages of CO2 emissions, due to

1) Motor vehicles

2) Industrial factories

3) Electricity generation, water desalination, etc

4) Natural causes, volcanoes, animals breathing, biological decay, etc.

 

[beej67]

I trust quite a lot of things presented to be by science, when that science follows the actual scientific method.

Climate modeling does not follow the scientific method. Climate models are not experiments, and have no control group. They are merely calibrated against historic data, which allows them to double-count some warming effects while neglecting other warming effects and still produce results that match the historic data well. That is not sound science, and every time I point that out on this forum all I hear is the sound of crickets.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[DanielWW]

rb1957

"It doesn't matter that his research is a crock, and proven by McIntyre"

From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph:

"Their [McIntyre and McKitrick's] analysis was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology."

But this is exactly what I don't want to do. I don't want to debate the technical details of climate change, because all I know about climate change comes from a handful of articles and blog-posts. The debate between arm-chair climatologists is never productive. Arm-chair climatologist #1 cites one study, climatologist #2 cites another, climatologist #3 feels like he wins when he asks a question that no one has an answer to because no one in the discussion really knows what the hell they're talking about.

To me, part of being a discerning, intelligent person is to recognize the limits of our expertise. It's a tough pill to swallow, and it takes some humility. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is that it is real, caused primary by man's burning of fossil fuels. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view. Some of the smartest people in the world have spent decades of their lives studying this. We're talking about millions of man hours. Presented with that information, I could conclude that there is some kind of international conspiracy. I could conclude that despite the influence of multi-billion dollar fossil fuel companies, the environmentalists or wind-energy lobby or whoever has infiltrated the scientific community and skewed the findings to overwhelmingly support the conclusion that climate change is real. Or I could attack science itself, or the peer review process. But, at some point you have to admit that all these scientists are much more likely to be right than wrong.

 

[rconnor]

Thank you DanielWW for providing some form of sanity to this discussion. Expect an oncoming wave of ideologically-based rage for doing so.

The repulsive anti-science sentiment is really disturbing. “Skeptics”, like the Young Earthers and anti-vaxxers, are willing to toss out the peer-review process and our most reputable scientific institutions due to an ideological view held so deeply that it cannot be questioned.

Through self-reinforcing ignorance, they admit to not even attempting to read about the science when it is presented to them. “Skeptics” then credulously replace that ignorance with dubious misinformation that they hear at obviously biased sources. But the cherry on top is that these habitual misinformers convince “skeptics” that institutions like NASA, NOAA and the Academy of Sciences are the misinformers. Hook, line and sinker, the recursive cycle of ignorance repeats…

(And zdas04, no my bed sheet is an image of Karl Marx and Robert Reich having a tax-payer funded same-sex wedding. Why do you ask?)

 

[rb1957]

"There’s nothing in either of these comments that resurrects MBH98 or refutes any of our findings." McIntyre on his blog at "

http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/25/vz-and-huybers-comment-and-reply/".

it's exactly as you say ... every point has a counter point and quickly you're arguing fine technical points that we almost certainly don't have the technical background to work from.

there's little that can be proven without using models, and no the traditional scientific approach can't be applied. however the models make predictions but so far their track record is very good. i doubt that any professional climate scientist is satisified with the complexity of the models nor their representation of real world interactions.

and we just go round and round this argument ... someone noted that surprisingly few people had changed their perspective on the issue, despite all the electrons spilt in the process.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[AELLC]

Sounds to me everyone disagreeing with each other while Rome is burning.