Let's watch global warming deniers' heads explode

[WhiteTailEER]

I have read attempts to correlate data based on future modeling forecasts

I'm open to the idea that something will come along and prove that there is no AGW. We can make correlations about anything in the world, but correlation doesn't mean causation. However, when 97% to 98% of the worldwide experts in the field agree, then I have to give it some credence.

Of course 97% - 98% have been wrong about things too.

 

[WVPATX]

The 97% claim is a lie. It is from a ridiculously flawed and unscientific study from years ago. The better gauge is that only apporximately 55% of Nobel Laureates at a recent conference agreed to sign a global warming statement. A far cry from 97%.

 

[Op2]

The 97% claim is a lie. It is from a ridiculously flawed and unscientific study from years ago. The better gauge is that only apporximately 55% of Nobel Laureates at a recent conference agreed to sign a global warming statement. A far cry from 97%.

Ba-loney. The 55% from the recent conference weren't even necessarily climate scientists. And the one you tried to make a big deal out of citing because he bashed Obama was a physicist that had already admitted he knew little about climate science.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I'm open to the idea that something will come along and prove that there is no AGW. We can make correlations about anything in the world, but correlation doesn't mean causation. However, when 97% to 98% of the worldwide experts in the field agree, then I have to give it some credence.

Of course 97% - 98% have been wrong about things too.

Agreed on all parts. What is being said makes sense on the surface but I am not taking it as gospel until there is direct causation confirmed.

 

[WVPATX]

Ba-loney. The 55% from the recent conference weren't even necessarily climate scientists. And the one you tried to make a big deal out of citing because he bashed Obama was a physicist that had already admitted he knew little about climate science.

The 97% figure is a LIE.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Ba-loney. The 55% from the recent conference weren't even necessarily climate scientists. And the one you tried to make a big deal out of citing because he bashed Obama was a physicist that had already admitted he knew little about climate science.

I have him on ignore, but can tell you're responding to WVPATX. I made that point as well, that those at the conference weren't all climate scientists. If they were, the 55% might be significant. Without knowing why 29 didn't sign, there is no conclusion to be drawn.

"they didn't sign, therefore they think it's a hoax" -- nope. There are any number of reasons why they didn't sign it, and chief among them is that it is out of their field. Let's say one is a heart surgeon ... he may not sign it because he hasn't looked into climate science at all so he doesn't want to take an official stance. Now apply that same reasoning to the 28 others.

There's no rationality with him. It doesn't matter how logical you make your case, he just won't accept anything that's counter to what he already wants to believe. That's why I just ignored him.

Many on here don't agree with me on any number of things. No big deal, but when somebody is so irrational that you can't even have a conversation ... better to just ignore them. It's like trying to argue with somebody that's trying to convince you that 2+2=5.

 

[WVPATX]

LMAO. He claims (a long ago discredited assertion) that 97% of scientists agree with man made global warming and calls me irrational?

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Agreed on all parts. What is being said makes sense on the surface but I am not taking it as gospel until there is direct causation confirmed.

I'm not being a dick, but what confirmation of direct causation would be enough for you? I'm just trying to think of how they would even track it down specifically.

Right now, they are seeing a rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere that corresponds with our industrialization, and a corresponding increase in the rate of warming. It's not like we can conduct experiments: "OK, let's release 1M cubic meters of CO2 in the atmosphere. By our calculations the CO2 levels will increase by .01% which should cause mean global temperature to increase by .05 degrees C"

Likewise, we can't reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere unless we plant a bunch more trees or stop burning so much fossil fuel. If we could then maybe we would see that yes, CO2 levels did come down and so did the mean global temperature.

So, that's where the models come in. I don't want to say that the models will NEVER be accurate, but they'll never be accurate. LOL. That's just how models of complex systems are. I worked with somebody that was working on a linear 6-DOF model using computational fluid dynamics to accurately model the lift of helicopter rotors. However, depending on what the model will ultimately be used for, you could possibly just do a simple model of X rpms = Y lift. Is the second model "accurate"? Yes and no. It's not 100% accurate because it won't be sophisticated enough to take into account every environmental factor, but it's accurate enough for it's purpose, i.e. this much throttle means this change in RPMs means this much change in lift, equals this much gain in altitude. That's "good enough" potentially, for a flight simulator. With the 6-DOF model you can do what-ifs regarding blade design changes, that still won't ever be 100% accurate.

Now you apply that same reasoning to climate models. Helicopter rotors are well understood, and relatively simple in comparison to the entire planet and everything on it and everything external affecting it. You could have the model absolutely 100% correct mathematically, but it still won't be accurate as a predictive model because of random events. Let's say China opens 100 more coal powered power plants, you didn't account for that when you made the prediction, so your prediction is now wrong.

I'm going a long way to say that I'm not sure what you're looking for is even possible for this particular subject.

 

[WVPATX]

We have ever increasing CO2 in the atmosphere but a 21 year period with no appreciable global warming. All the global warming models were wrong since they predicted ever higher temperatures. The models also predicted ever increasing and catastrophic weather events. That has not happened. Sea ice is near record levels.

We need much more evidence before we destroy industries and change quality of life for everyone.

 

[mule_eer]

I keep hearing about sea ice and the like. One important point is that there is a difference between sea ice and glaciers. The size of the land based glaciers is decreasing - a warming issue. The increase in sea ice with warming seas means what? Anyone who has had a glass of ice water should be able to make that analysis.

I'm not trying to politicize this, but I heard HC give a pretty good answer to someone who asked her if she would push for 0 removal of fossil fuels from public lands and force a shift to alternative fuels. HC said that should would not sign onto that plan. She laid it out pretty logically - you have to keep producing power and fueling vehicles in the present while you work on solutions to move away from those sources.

I'll also take the industry view of this. If we are able to become leaders in alternative means of producing/using energy, that is an industrial boon. It also makes sense from a security POV - less reliance on foreign sources now and in the future.

 

[WVPATX]

I keep hearing about sea ice and the like. One important point is that there is a difference between sea ice and glaciers. The size of the land based glaciers is decreasing - a warming issue. The increase in sea ice with warming seas means what? Anyone who has had a glass of ice water should be able to make that analysis.

I'm not trying to politicize this, but I heard HC give a pretty good answer to someone who asked her if she would push for 0 removal of fossil fuels from public lands and force a shift to alternative fuels. HC said that should would not sign onto that plan. She laid it out pretty logically - you have to keep producing power and fueling vehicles in the present while you work on solutions to move away from those sources.

I'll also take the industry view of this. If we are able to become leaders in alternative means of producing/using energy, that is an industrial boon. It also makes sense from a security POV - less reliance on foreign sources now and in the future.

Her response seems reasonable. I have long believed we need much more evidence and much more certainty than we have today before killing industries and jobs and raising energy prices on everyone. The actual temperature measurements do not match the predictions which should give all if us pause.

 

[mule_eer]

If you can invest in future technologies, you can create new jobs to fill the ones that will go away. Of course that means that some people will need to be trained in new jobs - not always ideal - but it's a sustainable model. And this can happen independent of the climate concerns, because the security side has a lot of merit also. It's planning for the long term, and we develop the technology before we absolutely need it, it puts us in an advantageous position when other people do absolutely need it. The other angle is that you can still pull oil, gas and coal out of the ground, but now you can export much more of it.

 

[WVPATX]

If you can invest in future technologies, you can create new jobs to fill the ones that will go away. Of course that means that some people will need to be trained in new jobs - not always ideal - but it's a sustainable model. And this can happen independent of the climate concerns, because the security side has a lot of merit also. It's planning for the long term, and we develop the technology before we absolutely need it, it puts us in an advantageous position when other people do absolutely need it. The other angle is that you can still pull oil, gas and coal out of the ground, but now you can export much more of it.

With all due respect, those green jobs Obama promised never materialized. But the job losses sure did in the coal industry. We can't even get Keystone approved because of the green whackos.

 

[mule_eer]

The uber green folks are crazy, and they want results yesterday. They aren't grounded in reality. My concern with Keystone is what we get out of it. Basically, we are letting the Canadians save money shipping their oil to our ports. Do we get a cut? Do we get jobs after construction is done? Do we at least get a discount on the oil if we want to refine it? What's the real cost-benefit analysis here?

Green jobs aren't going to come immediately. You have to invest now in order to have them in the future. It's an investment that will pay dividends in the long run.

 

[Op2]

What I don't understand is why so many people are against renewable energy even in principle. When and to what degree it's viable depends on how fast particular technologies develop but how can anyone be against the idea?

Although the US does well in producing oil and gas and coal, the energy market in general is dominated by bad countries that do bad things. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia, etc. The power of these countries is greatly enhanced by the oil/gas/coal energy paradigm. Why in the hell would we NOT want to change that as soon as is economically possible?

 

[dave]

I keep hearing about sea ice and the like. One important point is that there is a difference between sea ice and glaciers. The size of the land based glaciers is decreasing - a warming issue. The increase in sea ice with warming seas means what? Anyone who has had a glass of ice water should be able to make that analysis.

I'm not trying to politicize this, but I heard HC give a pretty good answer to someone who asked her if she would push for 0 removal of fossil fuels from public lands and force a shift to alternative fuels. HC said that should would not sign onto that plan. She laid it out pretty logically - you have to keep producing power and fueling vehicles in the present while you work on solutions to move away from those sources.

I'll also take the industry view of this. If we are able to become leaders in alternative means of producing/using energy, that is an industrial boon. It also makes sense from a security POV - less reliance on foreign sources now and in the future.

I agree with HC here. We should produce power as cheap and clean as we currently can while figuring out ways to be cleaner and chep in the future. Cheap and clean energy are probably at odds but both are important and the happy medium should be our goal.

 

[dave]

What I don't understand is why so many people are against renewable energy even in principle. When and to what degree it's viable depends on how fast particular technologies develop but how can anyone be against the idea?

Although the US does well in producing oil and gas and coal, the energy market in general is dominated by bad countries that do bad things. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia, etc. The power of these countries is greatly enhanced by the oil/gas/coal energy paradigm. Why in the hell would we NOT want to change that as soon as is economically possible?

Renewable energy technology right now basically sucks and is not viable without artificially lowering its price or artificially raising its competions price

 

[dave]

The uber green folks are crazy, and they want results yesterday. They aren't grounded in reality. My concern with Keystone is what we get out of it. Basically, we are letting the Canadians save money shipping their oil to our ports. Do we get a cut? Do we get jobs after construction is done? Do we at least get a discount on the oil if we want to refine it? What's the real cost-benefit analysis here?

Green jobs aren't going to come immediately. You have to invest now in order to have them in the future. It's an investment that will pay dividends in the long run.

We would charge transmission fees. We could also use the pipeline to transport internal resources. A lot of gas oupelines in wv have morphed into multi use pipelines.

Once you have the right of way and the infrastructure for the pipeline in place you have options for additional pipelines as well.

 

[WVPATX]

What I don't understand is why so many people are against renewable energy even in principle. When and to what degree it's viable depends on how fast particular technologies develop but how can anyone be against the idea?

Although the US does well in producing oil and gas and coal, the energy market in general is dominated by bad countries that do bad things. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia, etc. The power of these countries is greatly enhanced by the oil/gas/coal energy paradigm. Why in the hell would we NOT want to change that as soon as is economically possible?

You said economically feasible. Green energy is not. The U.S. Has the largest reserves in the world, with good high paying jobs. The warmists want to destroy that on an unproven theory. Why you can't see that is beyond comprehension.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I'll also take the industry view of this. If we are able to become leaders in alternative means of producing/using energy, that is an industrial boon. It also makes sense from a security POV - less reliance on foreign sources now and in the future.

Despite what my discussions on this board might indicate, I've long held the opinion that arguing over AGW is just holding us back. If you look at what is being proposed to combat AGW, well, there are any number of reasons to do those things besides trying to reverse AGW.

Arguing about AGW just obfuscates those other reasons. Lead the world in alternative energy. Our politicians in WV try to fight against the coal regulations ... you can still do that if you want, but the train is coming down the tracks, why not focus some energy on industries for WV beyond coal. Fight for the now, but build for the future.

 

[dave]

Despite what my discussions on this board might indicate, I've long held the opinion that arguing over AGW is just holding us back. If you look at what is being proposed to combat AGW, well, there are any number of reasons to do those things besides trying to reverse AGW.

Arguing about AGW just obfuscates those other reasons. Lead the world in alternative energy. Our politicians in WV try to fight against the coal regulations ... you can still do that if you want, but the train is coming down the tracks, why not focus some energy on industries for WV beyond coal. Fight for the now, but build for the future.

Why not do both? Why should coal operators be unfairly punished for operating a business just because politicians say so?

 

[old buzzard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-an-alarming-scenario-for-our-planets-future/

Science is exactly like history........they both change according to who is paying for the study.

 

[mneilmont]

Science is exactly like history........they both change according to who is paying for the study.

Very good and true. May I use it?

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Science is exactly like history........they both change according to who is paying for the study.

This is ridiculous. So, if somebody had a financial interest in the world being considered flat, then suddenly all scientists would reach that consensus?

 

[mneilmont]

This is ridiculous. So, if somebody had a financial interest in the world being considered flat, then suddenly all scientists would reach that consensus?

What is the interest of the person with finances to prove the world is flat? What can possibly be his gain or purpose?

 

[WhiteTailEER]

What is the interest of the person with finances to prove the world is flat? What can possibly be his gain or purpose?

That's not the point. The contention, which you were quick to agree with, is that science will always fluctuate with who is paying the bills. So, by that logic, if it suited somebody's interest the entire scientific community would go back ot saying the world is flat.

I chose an extreme example to show how ludicrous that premise is to begin with.

 

[countryroads89]

Science is exactly like history........they both change according to who is paying for the study.

You obviously don't know the history of leaded gasoline.

 

[Mntneer]

You obviously don't know the history of leaded gasoline.

What about Ethanol?

 

[countryroads89]

What about Ethanol?

You missed the point entirely. Despite the fact that big oil companies vastly out-funded others for "research" regarding emissions from the use of leaded gasoline, the US was able to end the practice of use of lead in gasoline and the welfare of all citizens and true science won in the end.

 

[Op2]

Science is exactly like history........they both change according to who is paying for the study.

Humans being human they can do shady stuff no matter what enterprise they're in, science included, but to state it so bluntly as you did is ridiculously ungrateful for anyone that lives in modern society instead of out in the woods like the Unabomer.

It used to be that there was controversy over whether cigarettes caused cancer. The tobacco companies paid for studies that ended up coming out their way. But the reason the controversy was solved in the other direction, that cigarettes do cause cancer, wasn't because even more people were paid to do studies to prove cigarettes do cause cancer but rather because people were paid to do unbiased studies.

 

[moe]

Very good and true. May I use it?

Do yourself a favor and don't.

 

[mneilmont]

That's not the point. The contention, which you were quick to agree with, is that science will always fluctuate with who is paying the bills. So, by that logic, if it suited somebody's interest the entire scientific community would go back ot saying the world is flat.

I chose an extreme example to show how ludicrous that premise is to begin with.

And I imitated you to choose an extreme example. Scientists are basically like the other segments of society. Some will prostitute themselves for money while others are strictly within principle of their profession. And I guess others simply have a position because of other beliefs and will not waiver. And of course they could be 100% honest with impeccable integrity.

 

[mneilmont]

Do yourself a favor and don't.

Do you have to give poor advice 100% of the time?

 

[WhiteTailEER]

And I imitated you to choose an extreme example. Scientists are basically like the other segments of society. Some will prostitute themselves for money while others are strictly within principle of their profession. And I guess others simply have a position because of other beliefs and will not waiver. And of course they could be 100% honest with impeccable integrity.

SOME scientists will sell their souls, the majority do not, and therefore "science" doesn't change.

 

[moe]

Do you have to give poor advice 100% of the time?

Can't remember any advice I've given here but if that's to be your go to science cliche then I would take a pass. You don't seem to be a science guy, just trying to be helpful.

 

[mneilmont]

SOME scientists will sell their souls, the majority do not, and therefore "science" doesn't change.

So, the basic question would have to be a question of anyone taking a position on a topic unless they can prove the hypothis

 

[mneilmont]

Can't remember any advice I've given here but if that's to be your go to science cliche then I would take a pass. You don't seem to be a science guy, just trying to be helpful.

I am glad that was not in the form of advice, but your deductive reasoning was dead on. Admittedly , I can easily state that I am not scientific trained enough to take a position.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

So, the basic question would have to be a question of anyone taking a position on a topic unless they can prove the hypothis

As in the hypothesis that science changes like history depending on who is paying for the study? Which you were quick to take a position on?

 

[mneilmont]

As in the hypothesis that science changes like history depending on who is paying for the study? Which you were quick to take a position on?

There you go again. I take no position on global warming or whatever the term is that is used today. I don't know. I have scientific "proof" on both sides. Unlike a bunch of others who take a strong position, I take none. Simply don't know. Refuse to take a position that is wrong because scientists stake a claim on a particular position.

But, you can tell them again which side I am on. I don't know, but maybe you know for me???

 

[MountaineerWV]

My belief in Global Warming is one that has a lot of questions and confusion. First, I agree that humans are polluting at an alarming rate. Second, it would be stupid and naive for us to think that pollution isn't going to come back and bite us in the ass.

Now, for the questions. How can someone explain how the planet heated up BEFORE all this industrialization and then cooled in to an Ice Age? There were no vehicles, factories, etc. So, I guess what I'm not understanding is how all of a sudden humans are being blamed for it entirely.

I believe we are no doubt speeding up the process, but that the Earth heats up and cools on its own. We are merely aiding in this process. It's cyclical, the heating up and consequential cool down. Nothing we can do to stop it. That's my belief. Can we try to slow it or curve it a bit? Sure. But at what cost? If we all went "green", then that would be losing millions of jobs. Is everyone wanting to go back to a time of now electricity, gasoline, etc.?