Total nonsense in climate debate

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 5/27/2019 at 9:05 AM, canadas canadas said:

Climate change belief or non-belief appears to be based on age demographics.  To many older people it is not a big concern but to many younger people it is a big concern.  Why?  Most likely to do with time and timing.  Since climate change is expected to become a big problem in the future, it will most likely impact those who are still alive at that time.  Most of the important current decision makers may not still be around by then.  Thus, they don't believe in climate change because it won't happen to them.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

-Max Plank

[markslawson + 1,058]

 

20 hours ago, Bachelor of Science said:

12 per thousand is 1,200 per 100,000.... blowing the whole premise of your cherry-picking mission to smear other scientists 

Thanks for pointing out the typo.. I meant to say 12 per 100,000. It can't really be cherry picking if the trends are clear and unequivocal and nearly universal.. deaths from infectious diseases have been declining everywhere for decades and what other scientists? The Swiss Re report I referred to did not have an acknowledged author(s). Very likely it was compiled by activists.. 

[markslawson + 1,058]

20 hours ago, Bachelor of Science said:

12 per thousand is 1,200 per 100,000....

corrected typo in the original.. glad someone was paying attention.. Your approach could be more constructive however - the error was an obvious one.. 

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

The Swiss Re report I referred to did not have an acknowledged author(s). Very likely it was compiled by activists.. 

It was least likely to be as you say. Swiss Re in 2018 derived net premiums earned and fee income of USD$35 billion and engage the world's best talent to prepare their reports.  They use data for their conclusions, and a key metric is their ROI.  It shows Property & Casualty ROI is trending at less than half that of Life & Health.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 5/27/2019 at 6:06 PM, Red said:

I have never, ever, seen you say anything credible on climate science, but welcome it in future.

 

[Red + 252]

6 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

A famous Australian boxer once said after losing a fight, "you can't be consistent all the time."  

And then there was Tom.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 minutes ago, Red said:

A famous Australian boxer once said after losing a fight, "you can't be consistent all the time."  

And then there was Tom.

 

Ha, Ha!!!  OK, that is totally slanderous, just outrageous, but you do have to admit, it is funny! 

I guess I am having a chuckle at your expense, Tom.  Please forgive me. Besides, it is late, and the wolves are howling out in the back woods again..... 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

15 minutes ago, Red said:

A famous Australian boxer once said after losing a fight, "you can't be consistent all the time."  

And then there was Tom.

 

4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Ha, Ha!!!  OK, that is totally slanderous, just outrageous, but you do have to admit, it is funny! 

I guess I am having a chuckle at your expense, Tom.  Please forgive me. Besides, it is late, and the wolves are howling out in the back woods again..... 

 

No worries Jan, I laughed at Red's comment also.  Funny is funny, no matter the source.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

 

No worries Jan, I laughed at Red's comment also.  Funny is funny, no matter the source.

Well, at least you are not mad at me, so that's a plus. 

Now, in all candor, Red is not a bad guy, I notice he gets a little carried away sometimes.  I am going to cut both you guys some slack in this debate.  And by the way, about those pesky aliens causing climate change:  I always figured they were up to something deceitful.  Rotters they are, the whole lot of them.  Cheers!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

15 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Well, at least you are not mad at me, so that's a plus. 

Now, in all candor, Red is not a bad guy, I notice he gets a little carried away sometimes.  I am going to cut both you guys some slack in this debate.  And by the way, about those pesky aliens causing climate change:  I always figured they were up to something deceitful.  Rotters they are, the whole lot of them.  Cheers!

It's actually a serious, scientific lecture.  In all seriousness, I urge you to take the time to read it.  It is a slam dunk as far as debating goes. 

Here's the opening:

 

"My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. 

Charting this progression of belief will be my task today. 

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either 
extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science—namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.  ..."

Crichton 2003 Aliens Cause Global Warming.pdf

[David Jones + 84]

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 10:28 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Red,

Give these a read:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#1e0fc2653f9f

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/fact-more-than-97-percent-of-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Of course you will just ignore this as it doesn't fit your agenda, but perhaps other's on OilPrice will find it interesting.

Epstein is not a climate scientist, he is a known fossil fuel industry lobbyist and has been for many years now so when you quote an article by someone like him it shows you didn't check the source. Many who quote such articles seem to thinking that they are providing an "honest and educated opinion" but don't bother with checking where the info is actually coming from. Lobbyists lobby, they don't provide honest opinions because honesty is problematic in that business, it's literally bad business practice for lobbyists to tell the truth. The above is making the point for me as I was going to respond to markslawson and his remark about the availability of contrarian research.

The only contrarian "research" I have seen over quite a few years of intense observation of the issue, is derived from fossil fuel industry lobbyists and their organizations. That sort of "research" mostly just tries to sound clever by using advanced terms some might find hard to grasp without actually providing any real evidence. I've also had the "pleasure" of discussing actual research with fervent denialists who thought that research strengthened their position but didn't actually understand the information properly. That's the general situation on the denialist front, lack of understanding and lobbyist efforts by affected industry. Nothing more there.

I'm not sure what your second link is supposed to do since it actually explains that there is in fact predominant consensus on climate change among scientists that are studying this issue and that the deniers are running fake "scientific" poll projects filled with people who have not actually studied the issue and don't even have an advanced degree yet, which should by now be obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of scientific sense. In short, anthropogenic climate change denial is as fake as fake gets.

Edited May 29, 2019 by David Jones

[David Jones + 84]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

It's actually a serious, scientific lecture.  In all seriousness, I urge you to take the time to read it.  It is a slam dunk as far as debating goes. 

I'm sorry, is this the same Michael Crichton who is in fact a screenwriter? I would hope that you are not quoting the 15 year old work of some screenwriter as if it's scientifically relevant to the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Again, my post above in relation to the state and standards of denialists stands.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Whether Epstein is a climate scientist or an energy lobbyist is not the issue. The issue is whether the information presented is factual or not.

By your metric we could safely ignore any article presented by a journalist in any media forum unless the journalist happened to be an expert in the issue being discussed.

Due to the serious decline in objective journalism recently, most rational adults are ignoring them as we 'speak'.

[Red + 252]

10 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Whether Epstein is a climate scientist or an energy lobbyist is not the issue. The issue is whether the information presented is factual or not.

By your metric we could safely ignore any article presented by a journalist in any media forum unless the journalist happened to be an expert in the issue being discussed.

Due to the serious decline in objective journalism recently, most rational adults are ignoring them as we 'speak'.

The question is whether or not it is science that is being presented, given climate science is not "journalism."  For reasons best known to you, you are defending mumbo jumbo, and not science.

Is there a reason you do not know the difference?

 

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

It's actually a serious, scientific lecture. 

If that is what you believe, then it explains why you lack credibility in climate science matters.  It does, however, justify you considering comedy instead.

I was going to post examples of why the linked paper was junk, but there were so many that I stopped bothering.  If you are going to put "a serious, scientific lecture" forward, then it is actually needs to be scientific.  Unfortunately you still cannot distinguish such differences.

[David Jones + 84]

 

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Whether Epstein is a climate scientist or an energy lobbyist is not the issue. The issue is whether the information presented is factual or not.

By your metric we could safely ignore any article presented by a journalist in any media forum unless the journalist happened to be an expert in the issue being discussed.

Due to the serious decline in objective journalism recently, most rational adults are ignoring them as we 'speak'.

There is a clear difference between a lobbyist and a journalist. By definition, one is being paid a lot to promote an industry interest which includes ignoring the negative effects of a product while promoting the positive ones, the other is being paid what is likely a relatively meagre sum of money to report the news. Who do you think is more likely to tell you the truth? Also, you linked an article from 2015 which contained charts that only went as far as about 2012. This is out of date information and he was not correct then simply because the natural system is more complex than just continuously rising. The intermittent "pause" which I have discussed in depth with one denier already, was nothing more than a natural variability along a continuing rising trend. Recent events in global average temperature increase since this "article" prove this and invalidate all this particular avenue of misinformation/denial. This person is also arguing on the basis of current and past states in terms of "how well we are doing", anthropogenic climate change does not work like that, it is more exponential than linear in it's damages and these will continue to increase in severity in a compounded way. What we see today is basically just the start. As for "most rational adults", I hope you don't mean people who get their news from Facebook (basically news you like regardless of validity), Fox News (trashy "news" for fun, very Murdoch), Breitbart (I'd rather not say what I think of this) and the like. There's almost no rationality to be had there other than the sort practiced by the intellectually blind (as an example we have: the weather outside representing some sort of proof for lack of global warming, apparently completely lacking understanding of the words global or average).

Btw, the projections I've seen for business as usual are not mild at all. Anyone claiming a potential bill worth about 2200 trillion is "mild" lacks understanding of basic finances, especially when this bill is not evenly distributed but rises exponentially from a comparatively low value. Now we can always hope that these projections are wrong but hoping for something not to happen doesn't make the problem disappear and not preparing and preventing the possibility of a worst case scenarios ensures these can happen as they have in the past (Titanic anyone?). The projection is not new, it's been around for a while as far as I'm aware and this has been re-evaluated, it has not become lower and in fact has become higher in at least one recent peer reviewed paper.

Another element in this Epstein "article" just caught my attention. He has chosen to portray a dotted line encompassing the highest and lowest points in the trend interchangeably in an attempt to make it seem less like an increase. This is obvious misrepresentation for a naturally variable system. You do not take highest and lowest points of a fluctuating system that is experiencing a broader trend, you take an average of the minor motions in order to display the accurate trend. These kinds of "daft statistics" tricks are common amongst deniers. Most importantly, they expose their intentions quite clearly to anyone willing to look carefully at what is being presented.

Edited May 29, 2019 by David Jones

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

First, you missed my point. Regardless of the origin of the information, the critical issue is, is the data or information true and factual?

Second, if you are interested in graphs, why is there always a 'disconnect' on EIA graphs where actual data ends and their projection begins?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 hours ago, Red said:

The question is whether or not it is science that is being presented, given climate science is not "journalism."  For reasons best known to you, you are defending mumbo jumbo, and not science.

Is there a reason you do not know the difference?

 

Much of what is being presented as science by the environmental community is 'mumbo jumbo'. I say that BECAUSE I know the difference.

I am holding my breath to see how far sea level rises when the Arctic ice cap melts....

 

[Red + 252]

54 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

First, you missed my point. Regardless of the origin of the information, the critical issue is, is the data or information true and factual?

The critical issue is if it is good science, and none of it came close.

 

56 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Second, if you are interested in graphs, why is there always a 'disconnect' on EIA graphs where actual data ends and their projection begins?

I have never seen EIA graphs in climate science papers.  Please enlighten us.

 

54 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Much of what is being presented as science by the environmental community is 'mumbo jumbo'. I say that BECAUSE I know the difference.

Given we are - so I thought - discussing climate science, what do environmental scientists have to contribute here?

 

55 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I am holding my breath to see how far sea level rises when the Arctic ice cap melts....

Most people know there is no such thing as the "Arctic ice cap."

Moreover, all science students know that it is impossible for Arctic sea ice to contribute to sea level rise.

It does seem to me you are drowning here.

[David Jones + 84]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

First, you missed my point. Regardless of the origin of the information, the critical issue is, is the data or information true and factual?

Second, if you are interested in graphs, why is there always a 'disconnect' on EIA graphs where actual data ends and their projection begins?

I didn't miss your point. I went ahead and explained exactly why what he wrote is garbage yet you either failed to understand or don't want to acknowledge it. It's also possible you don't get why the way he has presented the graph for instance, is simply wrong or that the information you are sharing here as if it's relevant is in fact completely out of date. If you present a graph the way he did, i.e. accentuating variability in a non-valid statistical fashion then what you are presenting is in fact false. He is also wrong about the criticality of fossil fuels in terms of a planned transition away from these energy sources. Many countries have already shown that to be the case. We may still need fossil fuels to some extent but by no means the way he presents it and again, this was almost 5 years ago, the situation is developing rapidly with alternatives having already become far cheaper than they were back then and continuing to fall in price. As I have said elsewhere, developing nations are investing heavily in alternatives. More so than many developed nations in terms of percent of GDP. Obviously incorporating alternatives works just fine in terms of growing GDP and improving quality of life for their people. So again, what he is implying in that piece of propaganda, fossil fuels as the only option for GDP growth and prosperity, is simply false.

The idea is not zero fossil fuels tomorrow and never was, the idea is a measured and planned transition over decades but unfortunately for us all, people such as yourself are unable to understand that the 30 years wasted so far mean far higher costs and a far tougher transition today and another couple of decades of feet dragging will mean not only an excruciating transition but one done under much higher environmental pressure.

Edited May 29, 2019 by David Jones

[D Coyne + 305]

On 5/27/2019 at 4:28 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Red,

Give these a read:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#1e0fc2653f9f

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/fact-more-than-97-percent-of-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Of course you will just ignore this as it doesn't fit your agenda, but perhaps other's on OilPrice will find it interesting.

Douglas,

I believe he meant scientific papers, not "biased mainstream media" stuff. 

In short your links are not relevant.

[specinho + 468]

9 hours ago, David Jones said:

I'm sorry, is this the same Michael Crichton who is in fact a screenwriter? I would hope that you are not quoting the 15 year old work of some screenwriter as if it's scientifically relevant to the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Again, my post above in relation to the state and standards of denialists stands.

eerrr...... there is a scenario:

Can you guess what it is??.............

Most would think it is a hat....... no?............ Only some can see through what is unseen............ it is a snake which has just eaten a small elephant............. (from book Little Prince)

Science fictions have one common extraordinary signature - the older the imagination runs ...... the closer the predictions to the future............

There is a reason................. the older generations might not have much to do......... their simplicity of lives was giving them clearer connectivity or wider space of imagination........... for example: Buddha mentioned thousands of years ago that "there are universe beyond our universe; and there are human besides mankind........"  People snorted back then...... even today............. 

If you have read Michael Crichton's books......... although not so easy to get into the content of the books sometimes........ you will realize the key concepts are largely possible and closer to any correct scienctifict guess as they could be......... Same with this case - the title was a little misleading by saying aliens are causing climate change while the content of the speech might be facts not so directly pointing to aliens.............

In a nutshell...... proceed lightly in undermining imagination or predictions from ancient sci fi writers and pushing out too fast what was spoken by MC by just reading the title without reading the speech.........

 

[specinho + 468]

3 hours ago, Red said:

Most people know there is no such thing as the "Arctic ice cap."

Moreover, all science students know that it is impossible for Arctic sea ice to contribute to sea level rise.

It does seem to me you are drowning here.

"All science students know that it is impossible for Arctic ice to contribute to sea level rise" is misleading........ at least one or two students in each class who might believe other wise..............

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

16 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

Crichton 2003 Aliens Cause Global Warming.pdf

I like his books so I read that. 

The part about second hand smoke was a joke.  I somehow doubt he would blow smoke in a newborns face even though he claims it was bad science.  Anyone who spent a night dancing in a smoke filled bar knows that second hand smoke sucks.

Secondly he wrote that way back in 2003, the models he abhors have improved. He may have changed his mind by now if he were alive**.

He made his living taking a bit of science and turning it into fiction... literally warping truth with wordplay.

 

**He died of a cancer that is related to cigarette smoke.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, specinho said:

eerrr...... there is a scenario:

Can you guess what it is??.............

Most would think it is a hat....... no?............ Only some can see through what is unseen............ it is a snake which has just eaten a small elephant............. (from book Little Prince)

Science fictions have one common extraordinary signature - the older the imagination runs ...... the closer the predictions to the future............

There is a reason................. the older generations might not have much to do......... their simplicity of lives was giving them clearer connectivity or wider space of imagination........... for example: Buddha mentioned thousands of years ago that "there are universe beyond our universe; and there are human besides mankind........"  People snorted back then...... even today............. 

If you have read Michael Crichton's books......... although not so easy to get into the content of the books sometimes........ you will realize the key concepts are largely possible and closer to any correct scienctifict guess as they could be......... Same with this case - the title was a little misleading by saying aliens are causing climate change while the content of the speech might be facts not so directly pointing to aliens.............

In a nutshell...... proceed lightly in undermining imagination or predictions from ancient sci fi writers and pushing out too fast what was spoken by MC by just reading the title without reading the speech.........

 

His books are good, but were not super imaginative like, say HG wells.  He took modern scientific ideas and just wrote stories around them.