Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

I hope that during Christmas when I'm 60 I'm still with my smoking hot wife and I am surrounded by my loving children and we are drinking hot cocoa in the snow.

Unrelated to you, I really hope I'm not a sad lonely old troll who can't read.

Merry Christmas Icarus! I gotta go - family time!

 

I have been reluctant to get into a discussion of the 'Precautionary Principle'. My reluctance stems from the fact that so few of the simple declaratory sentences (not to mention the compound or parenthetical) seem to penetrate the counsciousness of certain readers here. I also know in advance that a discussion of meaphor and simile will be unproductive.

But, since we're having so much fun and, thankfully, things haven't sunk to pure ad hominem attack, open minds might find it useful or instructive.

Some have posited the following - Even though there is no empirical evidence that humans are causing or will cause global catastrophe (through the continued emission of CO2), we should cut CO2 emissions just in case. The way we will do this is by taxing or by other means make burning fossil fuels so expensive that their use will be reduced to the point that temperatures will cease to rise and the world will be saved for future generations. We don't care if scientists publish peer-reviewed literature demonstrating that causes other than rising CO2 levels have major influence on climate fluctuations, cutting CO2 must be accomplished to save our children, our children's children's children's children's etc. We are concerned about future generations and you are not.

My humorous response would be, "What have the little buggers ever done for ME?" But as we know, there is no humor appreciated here.

Since the proponents of this view don't know within what context to discuss it, let's examine the new environmentalist power tool - the 'Precautionary Principle'.

To be fair, I'll post a link to the lefty encyclopedia Wiki:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspread_Conference_on_the_Precautionary_Principle"]Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

'When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.[5]"

Does anyone appreciate how this so-called principle might be more dangerous than useful? I surely do, but I'm betting my children's children's children's future (and I may not have any kids either) that power brokers and governments will misuse this idea - that they will abuse it to the detriment of mankind. I'm also betting that eco-fascists will not appreciate turning the principle around and examining the reverse idea of doing nothing if you can't prove a good reason for doing it.

So, I'll be helpful in that regard as well.

Precautionary Tale - Reason Magazine

...Environmentalists often liken technology and economic growth to a car careening down a foggy road. They suggest that it would be better if we slowed before we crashed into a wall hidden in the fog. The Precautionary Principle, its champions believe, "would serve as a `speed bump' in the development of technologies and enterprises."

Unfortunately, these principles and tenets may sound sensible to many people, especially those who live in societies already replete with technology. These people already have their centrally heated house in the woods; they already enjoy the freedom from want, disease, and ignorance that technology can provide. They may think they can afford the luxury of ultimate precaution. But there are billions of people who still yearn to have their lives transformed. For them, the Precautionary Principle represents not a speed bump but a wall....

 

Icarus, since you can't grasp the concept of someone linking to a post which contains statements made by a third party, I'll explain it again.

Icarus asks Ufourya - I asked you a perfectly straight forward question, " Are you asking us to believe that you have had a change of heart regarding the causes/effects of global warming as a result to the so called "climategate" emails?"

Simple question.

Simple answer. No.

Really complicated answer beyond grasp of some:

I, ufourya, did not make a statement indicating that 'climategate' E-mails changed my mind about global warming. I posted an article where someone else - another person, not myself, not ufourya - indicated that the climategate E-mails changed HIS mind. OK?

That's it.

Hope all have a Merry Christmas or Happy Chanukah.
Enjoy the holidays, all you atheists.

 

Don't drop to their level mate, they will beat you with experience.

 

Thank you, was that so hard? RadioPrius had mentioned that it was only as a result of the leaked e-mails that he had had is epiphany. I was just asking you if that were the case,

Once again, simple question, simple answer, in spite of NvP's attempt to make it something other than it was!

 

They haven't? This thread reads like 800 posts of insults, and maybe 10% science.

 

Information IS beautiful

Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is Beautiful

 

Unfortunately information is also misleading.

The first graph is completely worthless. It tells you nothing. It says that there are 12,900,000 scientists and that 31,000 signed the petition project. That means nothing. That does not mean the other 12,000,000 disagree with the petition project, and it no way tells you about their beliefs one way or another. By their standards, I am scientist. I have not signed the petition project. I'd only even heard about it relatively recently. If I didn't have to be bothered with mailing something in or however it works I probably would sign it.

The second graph is also misleading. It says it is a survey of 10,257 earth scientists. Well, according to the link you provided:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Only 3,146 people answered that survey. (That is 1/10th of the number of people who signed the petition project saying they did not think that humans are the major cause of global warming. )

Also, their definition of climatologist is a little funny:

By that definition, Michael Mann would be considered in that population but we all know he technically shouldn't be. So would Steve McIntyre.

Also, the questions are rather vague. Let's look at the second question:

Does significant mean "an important contributing factor" or does it mean "the driving force"? I think that CO2 contributes to climate change, but I think we greatly exaggerate the amount. How would I answer that question?

The question should have been "Do you agree with the hypothesis of global warming as presented in the most recent IPCC report?"

From the comments of the site you posted:

You guys have got to start reading your links before you post them. A failure of epic proportions, Alric.

(It's hilarious you post a survey that had 1/10th the number of responders as compared to the people that signed the petition project.)

Edit: Heading out - Merry Xmas to my AGWers!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/23/the-climategate-timeline-30-years-visualized/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...entific-results-useful-to-a-political-agenda/

 

And the Petition Project is more valid because.....?

The points of the survey are:

1. The petition project is not a representative sample of US scientists.

2. When you ask the people with expertise disagreement with AGW is less than 1%.

 

Alric,

"And the Petition Project is more valid because.....?"

Because NvP posted it, and everyone knows he is the only one who knows the truth.

 

Hi Alric!

I'm completely drunk and I can still refute the "points" you bring up!

1. Neither is the survey you posted. You obviously have not taken even a college course in statistics - otherwise you would know of bias. If you have taken such a class, I know someone of your upmost integrity would not willingly post such a retarded survey. By the way, your survey showed 3,000ish people in support of AGW, the petition project showed 30,000+ You know nothing about bias, samples, populations, etc. It's laughable. LOL.

2. I demonstrated their definition of "expert" is not very good. By their standard, the petition project had more "climatologists" than yours did. After all, your survey's example would include both Michael Mann and Steve McIntyre as a climatologist. Also, the petition project showed 9,000 PhD's (30,000+ total) not agreeing with AGW, while your survey only had 3,000ish responders in total. LOL.

LOL. Look at the survey techniques of the petition project vs. your poll. (I'm sure this is where I'll be required to post a college level introduction to statistics right?)

And as I showed above in all the quotes I posted, it's not just us "denialists" that think your article is absolutely ridiculously retarded. It's basically everyone who even supported your author to begin with. LOL.

The status quo of you and Icarus looking like goobers has not changed. I can't believe you posted that article - LOL.

Thank you for the good laugh, A.L.R.I.C.!

10 POST "RANDOM INTERNET ARGUMENT I PLAGIARIZED"
20 POST "X CHANGE OF SUBJECT"
30 POST "RANDOM GRAPH X"
40 DELAY 1 DAY
50 GOTO 10

 

N.E.V.A.D.A.P.R.I.U.S., Why do you write Alric's name like that? Is is some kind of immature put down? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house, not a CRUminal was stirring, because they were all paranoid that they are going to jail for fraud (email unrelated)

 

This is MONUMENTAL:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarm...climategate_30_years_in_the_making_banner.pdf


Also,
REVIEWING PAPERS CRITICAL TO OWN WORK
JONES [1080742144.txt]: Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL
So Phil Jones, head of the CRU, is peer-reviewing work that claims the CRU had bad data? Wow corrupt much?

CONTROL PAPERS USED BY THE IPCC
JONES [1089318616.txt]: I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! [They were excluded from the IPCC report See [81] for more about what took place.]

HOW TO HIDE 10 YEARS OF RECENT COOLING: DON'T SHOW IT
KELLY to JONES [1225026120.txt]: Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

ADMISSION: THE SUN AND/OR EL-NINO DRIVE CLIMATE
SCHNEIDER [1255550975.txt]: As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed-- vacation ... there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000.
Note also the word "likely" betraying they actually have no idea what drives climate up, but their best guess is that it is the Sun

JONES HOPES CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES
JONES [1120593115.txt]: As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish.

COOK: WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT TEMPERATURES BEFORE 1900
COOK e-mails BRIFFA with a suggestion for a new paper: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are The Greatest Uncertainties?", authored by himself, "BRIFFA, ESPER, OSBORN, D'ARRIGO, BRADLEY(?), JONES (??), [and] MANN. ... What I am suggesting is strictly an empirical comparison of published 1000 year NH [northern hemisphere] reconstructions [because] this is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done before the next IPCC [2007] assessment.."
He suggests a range of topics, including "Describe the past work (Mann, Briffa, Jones, Crowley, Esper, yada, yada, yada)" and ends with the conclusion he says he knows the paper will come to [1062592331.txt (expletives removed)]:
COOK: Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fu**-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fu**-all). ... Publish, retire, and don't leave a forwarding address ... If you don't want to do it, just say so and I will drop the whole idea like a hot potato.

 

Alric, haha!

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

 

This was fantastic. A statistician destroys a "climatologists" work.

WEGMAN REPORT: MCINTYRE & MCKITRICK RIGHT, MANN WRONG
The Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked [Edward Wegman] to assess ... the statistical validity of work by Michael Mann. Wegman accepted the [assignment] pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann's work. [113]
In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 [by Mann et al.] to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b [McIntyre and McKitrick] to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to
do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. ...
In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction,
we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.
Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. [See {JONES 5.Aug.2009} and {JONES 26.Feb.2004}] Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. [40, 52]
Dr. Edward Wegman: Ph.D. in mathematical statistics; statistics professor at George Mason University; past chair of the National Research Council’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics; Fellow of the American Statistical Association; past associate editor of seven academic journals; member of numerous editorial boards; author of more than 160 papers and five books. [41]

 

This is why I can't understand the denialist position. Somehow Briffa's email from 1999 in a group discussion. Invalidate all other possible points of view at the moment and all published by himself and others many years later. Like this:

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - D'Arrigo et al. 2006 Northern Hemisphere Tree-Ring-Based STD and RCS Temperature Reconstructions

 

So, we seem to want to talk about the consensus among scientists, etc, instead of actually talking climate science.

Here's some more information on the "consensus"

 

Ack, change of subject I guess you were done with your completely ridiculous "information is beautiful" graphs?

Is this "argue by half an abstract" day?

Don't forget all the other reconstructions:

Google Nachricht

And perhaps Edward Cook said it best: (I've tried my best to remove all cuss words, if there are any still there, please forgive me)

 

Now he's (by his own admission) stumbling around drunk, ranting to himself. Perhaps we should let him, until he sobers up!

So sad!