Climate Change: The Non-Issue Crisis

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I could have posted this in other thread, but unfortunately it appears to have been locked due to the egotistical realunoriginal-like antics of a certain few unable to keep to the topic at hand. Well played, certain few. :unamused:

Now then, the issue is not whether or not humans have an effect on climate change, per se. I understand even if we have an effect on climate change (even with the current data, that is, fixed and un-fudged to reflect the proper science on the issue), it is so minimal that it’s pretty much insignificant what we do one way or another (so why in God’s name are we paying for this? Money, attention, anything!?).

The issue is the climate change religion that’s being caused as a result of the fudged data, misleading politics and overblown media. The taxing costs that we’re paying, that we’re going to be paying, costs that are being passed down onto us for a non-issue should be cause enough for public outcry on the situation at hand – but the possibility of a global authority able to charge, to enforce carbon taxes on our governments is almost insane, yet somehow even moreso for a non-issue at that.

I recently stumbled across these two websites, related to climate change in one way or another:
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
heartland.org/

Meanwhile, I was also recently pointed to this book, which I hope gains some considerable exposure to point out this whole non-issue… issue:
amazon.com/Climate-Change-Re … r-mr-title

“You see, but you do not observe,” the great detective tells his friend. “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

  • Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes: A Scandal in Bohemia

‘Unfortunately, politics has taken center stage in this issue. S. Fred Singer writes: "We regret that many advocates in this debate have chosen to give up debating the science and focus almost exclusively on questioning the motives of `skeptics’, name-calling, and ad hominem attacks. We view this as a sign of desperation on their part, and a sign that the debate has shifted toward climate realism." (p. vii).’

‘Climate Change Reconsidered provides more than 800 pages of in-depth scientific discussion on just about every global warming-related topic imaginable. With literally hundreds of citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature, Idso and Singer document and explain how the best, most up-to-date science refutes the assertion that humans are creating a global warming crisis.’

2

Get in I win and get to get banned as well!

Is there no shame to the hedonist!

As it says in very small print on my Avatar “I apologise… for nothing!”

Your thread was a poorly executed rant which you failed to get back to, it deserved to be moved to the conspiracy theory section pending or locked. If you can’t keep an eye on what you post to the ether then don’t post it is my advice. Friendly of course.

If you want a sophisticated discourse on the issue then go to a site that deals with this specifically as part of it’s raison d’etre. I don’t think you will find what you want here, these are not the droids you are looking for.

3

Actually, I did keep an eye on it – but I did not bother responding to posts where those certain few said droids couldn’t help but trail off topic. Speaking of which, unless you have something to say on topic, I will not respond to you again.

As a note, I have already got what I wanted here for this topic. And the more it is viewed, the more I get of what I want. Any additional information, constructive critisism or review of information presented is simply a bonus.

Have a nice day.

4

And there’s your problem if you even saw those droids the fact that you didn’t turn them in to Darth Vadar by default means you couldn’t and so didn’t unless you can show otherwise.

Unless you have something to say that’s even worth listening to then feel free not to reply to me.

5

Okay - I truly hope that the question of who is talking to who is settled.

Comments on the topic itself will always be welcome. If this turns into a pissing match, I’m going to remove some piss. If I have to expunge entire posts, I will.

Now, does anyone have anything to say about the subject of the OP?

6

[edited by Faust]

7

Further to the OP, I was recently pointed out some extra information regarding the book I mentioned, “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).”

If the price tag for the book is a little much, here is their website:
nipccreport.org/

Check out the various Chapter links which highlight the key findings. Clear, concise and very interesting. I do hope this all works some way to removing what has become the ‘climate change religion’ - this non-issue we are all paying for, and will continue to have to pay for should nothing be done.

The authors’ wikipedia biographies:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer (he won an argument with Carl Sagan)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Idso (not much here except he thinks the extra CO2 will benefit plant growth)

[Thanks numb!]

8

Here is a synopsis of the kind of money at stake in Climate change “science”.

online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … st_Popular

9

Why don’t we call it the ‘we know better than the various independent monitoring stations from a host of organizations all of whom say the same thing’ religion while we’re out there scoring political points based on emails that have been processed to be completely out of context, with prejudice, and interpreted based on zero prior expertise? You don’t know what you’re talking about. Admit it. You’re part of a group of politically motivated but scientifically challenged people with a strong sense of entitlement to your opinions. Stop politicizing these issues.

scientificamerican.com/blog/ … 2009-11-24

"While the revelations about pressuring the peer review process and apparent slowness in responding to an avalanche of requests for information unveil something below impressive scientific and personal behavior, they can also be seen as the frustrated responses of people working on complex data under deadline while being harassed by political opponents.

Note the adjective there. Political, not scientific, opponents. Because the opposition here is not grounded in any robust scientific theory or alternative hypotheses (all of those, in their time, have been shot down and nothing new has been offered in years) but a hysterical reaction to the possibly of what? One-world government? The return of communism? If that’s the fear, perhaps someone can explain why the preferred solution to climate change offered by former proponents of inaction is nuclear power. Has there ever been a nuclear reactor built anywhere in the world that didn’t rely on government to get it done? Sounds like socialism, doesn’t it? Hello France? USSR? USA?"
Another fact of the day about nuclear is that all nuclear operators are insured by governments through a liability cap as a result of any negative effects the plant may have on the general population.
And yes, researchers get money. All researchers get money. When issues gain in importance, the funds increase. This is pretty simple. I can get a whole host of similar events at my university alone, issues that receive great funding because they’re important. Saying the climate change data is a result of the money, rather than the money a result of the data, is just a silly trick to confuse the causal cycle.

It’s completely fine to question these things, “well what about x and y if z?”, what’s silly is having the audacity to question a 200 year old principle, data that proves it, and that has been fought against by governments and corporations and only recently received prominence due to the mounting evidence and risk involved, and say it’s all a conspiracy to get extra funding. Silly.

10

Jump to conclusions much? I am interested in the politics of this issue, which is why I made that last post. The politics exists - I didn’t cause this. It’s there no matter what position you take on the issue.

I wonder if you do your science with the same lack of logic, strawmen and anger as you post.

11

W C,

I’ve got a friend. He scoffs at any talk of “climate change” or “green” initiative. He makes compelling arguments about how easy it is for environmentalists to win favor with people and about the bullshit motives and facts underlying many “green” initiatives. And he’s right about that. But he’s wrong to conclude that climate change is a complete charade. A lot of people hide behind the guise of an inflated, high-minded DOUBT. Doubt, while generally useful, no longer serves any real function in the case that the doubter keeps himself purposefully ignorant. There is what we call riding the fence–which is an appropriate position to take on certain issues–AND there is riding the fence because you’re heavily biased.

Observe: On climate change
Person B: You know, you should really get your car fixed…you emissions must be equivalent to those of a third-world nation’s! And the earth doesn’t need any help speeding up climate change.

Person A: Climate change? Earth goes through natural climate fluctuations, I don’t need to waste any time or money getting my car fixed.

Person B: The earth does go through natural climate fluctuations, but we are also helping to accelerate negative changes.

Person A: I’m not so sure about that. Climate change is just a fear mongering campaign to coerce people into doing….

Person B: No it’s not. There is empirical evidence to support the existence of human impact on climate change.

Person A: Fine show me proof.

Person B: Well, I don’t know all the details myself, but you can look it up.

Person A: Hah, that’s what I thought!

But then person A never does any research (or searches only for biased, poorly constructed disconfirmatory evidence) and retains the intellectually lazy (complacent) belief that there is no such thing as human induced climate change.

How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor … 1-faqs.pdf
ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Source: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE – Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis” – FAQs

12

You provided a link from the Governmental International Panel on Climate Change.

I provided a link from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

Both are panels on Climate Change, yet what they are stating is not the same. The first has evidently fudged data, the second is presenting the empirical facts without fudging. The first cries apoloclypse, the second calmly provides the possibilities, none of which are apocolyptic.

Do we listen to the empirical facts, or do we listen to the fudged empirical beliefs and cries of apocolypse?

The issue in this thread is not whether or not Climate Change is occuring. The issue is, we have been and we are going to be taxed, and we are going to have to pay money – based on fudged data – to pretend we are preventing a Climate Change apocolypse, that in itself is a myth created by the fudging of said data, when all we are doing is paying, giving our money to the Climate Change business.

The way it’s been going, it tipped to be the next ‘oil’. A lot of money is at stake here, evidently worth fudging data for.

13

Gee, that’s a great story.

Let’s talk tree rings. Tree rings can tell us about some summertime conditions in a particular place over the life of some trees.

What do they tell us about winter conditions, including temperatures?

How widespread is the sample we use to learn about past climate conditions? How dense are the data? How far back have we gone, with what density, in what areas of the Earth? And how much of a factor is that in validating that there has been significant human-caused warming on a global scale?

Let’s talk computer models. Let’s talk about computer models used to predict the weather in a given place three days hence. Let’s talk about how many models are used to predict the time and place of landfall of a hurricane three days hence, and how many of them are correct in the event.

I want to hear from our knowledgeable and renowned experts in climate change. Our very own resident experts - you know, the only ones with any right to talk. We don’t need links or citations - for we have experts right here.

Grabbin’ my popcorn. Twistin’ a fatty.

14

“Climate Change: The Non-Issue Crisis” You can’t call climate change a non-issue crisis, and then expect not to discuss that claim. How can you discuss the taxes and politics of the issue without also discussing the nature climate change itself?

Members of the NIPCC do not represent the international scientific community; they were pulled as “global warming skeptics” to come to the Heartland Institute’s 2008 “International Conference on Climate Change.”

15

The irritation underlying the post was directed at the author of the topic who ‘religiously’ denies the widely accepted science and instead validates his prejudices by selectively choosing data whose validity is poor, and even pure fiction, that happens to support his claims. I mentioned your research/funds issue due to an apparent image that the sceptics have of researchers driving BMW’s from newly bought mansions on top of climate change funds.

And before there’s yet again the claim that I am claiming to be an expert by shutting everyone else down, I’ll repeat what has been said before through an example: If I’m designing a car, and I’m designing, say, the suspension system, I’ll need a very good understanding of solid mechanics and dynamic systems in order to make a car that gets good holding and provides reasonable comfort. I don’t need to know fluid dynamics. When I design the suspension, I let my colleague who does know fluid dynamics design the body. I don’t question him every step of the way because I have reason to believe that he is capable.
In the same way, I feel confident to say that their work is valid as judged by their peers, even if I don’t know all the details and don’t scrutinize every report. What I do think is a shame is the constant harassment that the scientific community faces from outside interference through non- and half-experts with strong prejudice seeking political points, when there’s no reason to suspect incompetence. I think what has happened now with the UEA center head stepping down is a just an absolute shame.

But now to answer your questions:
It’s summer data. Are you trying to imply a greater variation between the seasons than the years? Given that we receive more sun per area during summer, a more pronounced greenhouse effect would be expected during summer.
The statistical methods are detailed in the reports, climateaudit.org/pdf/others/ … 01.jgr.pdf , unfortunately I have to use this site to provide a free copy. The sample is from “large areas of the Northern Hemisphere” using “thousands of trees”. The locations are shown on page 2. 600 years is the reliable data according to the report. That’s just the free one I could find, there’s countless others. Similarly, the CO2 correlation is mirrored in many other articles, and as mentioned before, is a 200 year old principle dating back to Fourier. The models that predicted ‘anthropogenic’ global warming as opposed to natural warming have so far been correct as well. Unfortunately however, I don’t have access to electronic journals through my library so it would take more effort if I were to go through the physical copies to take out citations.
A simple summary of the work on tree rings and how it works:
“http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:K4PMQ4XE-DoJ:www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/annrep94/trees/+tree+ring+temperature&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk”

Computer models give probabilities, which is why people, myself included, can get disappointed when the weather is contrary to forecasts. But that’s just the way models work.
uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pr … /CRUupdate
“The principal conclusion from these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely (90% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (66% probable) the warmest in the past 1300 years.”

Again, I’m going to reiterate that it’s not a “right to talk”, and that my field is not specifically global warming and am not an ‘expert’, but the right to issue authoritative statements. If I don’t know about something, I don’t say “BUT HEY WHAT ABOUT THIS HUH NOT SO SMART NOW YOU’RE WRONG LOL?!”, I ask and find out in a non-aggressive way, otherwise noone will take the time to explain. As I asked and found out about the “decline” sentence in the emails, based in part on the strange sentence structure if it were to mean what people were indicating, so that I wouldn’t make a fool out of myself in order to score political points: nature.com/nature/journal/v3 … 678a0.html

Scientists take uncertainties in account and give probabilites, which are generally reflected in their reports. The same can’t be said for the general population, as the chaos over the leaked emails has shown (i.e. “hide the decline?! they’re manipulating the data!”). It is up to the scientific community to avoid confusing the public, and these things just deal a huge blow to that effort.

16

My mate told me all scientists are secretly under the influence of The illuminati and they are under the control of David Icke who is in control of the Reptillians. It must be true he knows everything about climatology. :unamused:

17

I don’t think I have to point it out, but I will. All Sidhe’s posts so far have been predicted and voided by the following quote:

Great originality and in depth thought, droid. Meanwhile:

Climate Change: The Non-Issue Crisis. Ok. I’ll explain.

Climate Change, according to the non-fudged science, according to the emperical data, is a non-issue – the effect that can possibly be measured by humans is minimal, and even if it were higher, the result would still be no where near apocalyptic, if even noticable (ala possible approx 20 inch sea level rise over 100 years). If you want to debate that, start a thread on it – I’d be happy to discuss it further.

The crisis is, the taxes that we will be forced to pay, and the economy that will die as a result of the measures being put in place for the apocalyptic positions of the fudged science when, read closely now, nothing that hasn’t happened before is going to happen as a result of our miniscule impact on climate change.

18

I have read about 15 of these exposed emails, all that I could find online in a cursory search. None of them is damning of the scientists who wrote them. The only one which is legitimately questionable is where he talks about deleting emails. This appeared to be in response to a Freedom Of Information request, and so intentionally deleting information related to that request would be a crime. Perhaps there are other examples that I have not seen; if anyone has a website where these emails are up en mass, please link it.

Some of the emails are suspicious, but only because we do not speak their jargon, and because they were speaking informally to each other. I can see how “hide the decline” and “trick” could easily be explained by standard and legitimate scientific analysis of data - the decline is considered nonrepresentative of more recent temps, so its legitimate to “hide” it with the addition of other data, just like “trick” is just a colloquialism or jargon between friends.

First impression I get is that these emails seems to be overblown. Those who seized on this immediately as “proof” that global warming is a hoax seem just as politically motivated as those scientists whom they accuse from within the climate research community. Once again I would love to read some more of these emails, as so far the only truly damning one ive seen is the apparent attempt to delete FOI data; but this too could be a misunderstanding. . . we are only seeing small clips without broader context. Maybe the emails to be deleted had nothing to do with the data requested by FOI. I dont know. But jumping to conclusions either way is unjustified.

Please post more of these emails if you have links to them. But just going off the most published ones that ive seen, which I assume would have been selected for being the most shocking or incriminating, there is not much substance to this email hack attack.

That being said, I do reject global warming as at the very least “suspicious” or unproven as of yet. There is contradictory data and disagreement among scientists. In addition we know that, regardless of whether global warming is true or not, it is used as a political weapon. I lean towards the conclusion that any warming or cooling that happens is a natural cycle, and the fact that C02 is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total atmosphere (0.038%), and that human contributions to C02 are fractional of this amount, I see the chances of human impact as slim. This doesn’t mean they are nonexistent, but the “debate is over” is certainly false - that is, unless you are a politically motivated tyrant bent on establishing a global taxation system for economic control and personal political gain. Or if you are a brainwashed, blind and emotionally manipulated follower of the status quo, as many (most?) global warming supporters are.

19

I must have missed something. Where is the post that claims that climate scientists are living in mansions? The reason that the money is of interest to me is manifold, but mostly is due to a classic moral question - “What do we owe to future generations?” My tax dollars going to a highly politicised and uncertain theory and its ramifications, evidently. I mistrust the scientists far less than i do the politicians. I think I have stated before that I have every reason to believe that most of these scientists are sincere. But I think that Bill Gates and Donald Trump are sincere, as well. Business is business. I spent a few minutes yesterday justifying my existence (within the company) to my boss. I see nothing wrong in that. It’s not about right and wrong.

There are several issues, here. the science, the politics, the money and the way science is funded are the main ones I am addressing.

I am already confused. First you say that only experts should talk about this. Then you say you’re not an expert. Then you talk about it. My widdle nonscientific peabrain is addled.

I am, in fact, implying more than that. I am implying that tree growth is affected by many more factors that summer sun and mean summer temps. And yeah, “large areas of North America”. Small sample. I live in Maine, and have been waiting for Global Warming for years. I am a fan of Global Warming, but it has so far let me down.

And yeah, thousands of trees. There are thousands of trees between where I live and where I work. While this may be a reason to pump more money into research, I don’t think it’s a reason to limit industrial growth.

That’s correct. Which means that it’s stupid to evacuate a coastal city a week out, just as it’s stupid to change the way we drive and make stuff and generate power a century out.

Let’s accept this conclusion. It’s not true of many places on the globe. But is it true of any places in the Northern Hemisphere? And what are the consequences for coldwater ports and agriculture in Northern Hemisphere countires? You know, the ones who are going to foot the bill for GW? Is there a reason why Russia, for instance, has been known to drag its feet a bit on AGW? Hmmmmmmm.

Meanwhile, it’s not true of Maine. Which kind of sucks for me, as family concerns prevent me from going south for the winter.

Oh. What’s the probability that the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around it?

For the record, I have been skeptical about Global Warming for years. I even remember the impending “Global Cooling” crisis. The recent news is more of interest to me because of the politics of science. This is a SS board, by the way.

20

#Random internet nobody vs IPCC.

I can see that raging debate going on for seconds! :smiley: