Conservatives and climate change

[DavidJames]

I'm not accusing AlBell, mhaze, or Malcolm Kirkpatrick of dishonesty. They may just be repeating an argument they've heard somewhere, without being qualified to evaluate that argument on its merits.

I think you are way to kind.

 

[jj]

Wrong. Take a look at the number of nuclear plants.

I did. It's profoundly unsustainable. We don't have enough thorium or uranium to fuel them, even if we come to our senses and reprocess our "waste", which we should have been doing from day 1, since it's (RULE 10) stupid to throw away 9% of the fuel value of your fuel.

Sorry, you need to do some basic math.

How about this:

If I take a jug of nothing but air, and shine a heat lamp through it, and repeat at the same temperature and pressure with a jug of CO2, what will happen when I measure the black-card temperature on the far side of each of these jugs.

What will I see for a black-card reading adjacent to, but shielded from, the heatlamp?

 

[lomiller]

lol, so every paper that contradicts your pet theory is "anti-science".

Ummm you are the one who pet theory was contradicted, you seem to forget you actually posted your position here in this thread.

Disagreeing with methodology is not "anti-science".

Please be specific, what science did Watts "deny"

The group was following Watt's methodology. That's why he promised to accept their results, until he found out they rejected his claims at which point he began to deny the results.

 

[lomiller]

I've never read any in the peer reviewed literature.

ftfy

You have not been able to support your claims that you are appealing to or following the peer reviewed literature.

 

[lomiller]

I do agree AGW is more than the observed warming over the last 150 years.

Dishonest presentation of the trend noted. a) Do you or do you not accept the warming trend is currently just under 2 deg per 100 years? b) do you accept that this could accelerate to as much as 3-4 deg per 100 years if CO2 emissions continue unabated?

 

[SezMe]

Thorium reactors have serious advantages in this area, but I'd leave it to that industry and their experts to decide on the best types of reactors, as well as what to do with spent fuel.

I caught that hand-wave. The people on the moon saw it.

 

[Furcifer]

If you feel uncomfortable being labelled a denier, stop making denialist arguments.

lol, and what are the "denialist arguments"?

Good. Problem is, that's all you allowed. What, specifically, don't you agree with when it comes to the consensus view on AGW, and why?

Beats me, I don't know (remember) what the "tenets" of the ACC are, nor do I care. I just read the science. I think your major objection is that I'm not alarmed by what I read.

I and others have given you SPECIFIC examples of deniers denying science, and all you've done is denied them.

I haven't "denied" anything besides unsubstantiated accusations. Someone said Watts "denied" the science and yet he's actively participating in peer reviewed studies. It makes no sense. Someone else posted a YouTube video (lolz, just like CT's) and claimed the man said something he didn't say.

If I've "denied" anything it's your understanding of the scientific process. Proposing an alternate hypothesis is not "denial" or "anti-science", that's just how science works.

Did you know that all words are made up?

Contrarian

Indeed they are.

I suppose you have evidence showing that there is no consensus regarding AGW?
No?
More denial on your part then.

I agree with the current "consensus" opinion. I just don't find it "alarming". The science is in it's infancy (this is "consensus" opinion) and it will be many more years before we know how the climate is going to react to the increase in CO2 with any accuracy to go above and beyond what we are already doing to curb emissions.

That isn't "contrarian" or "denial", that's the moderate skeptical view I believe most rational people have.

I was an alarmist almost 20 years ago and thought the climate was past the tipping point and on it's way to catastrophe. I came to realize that I had been mislead, and that the science isn't as accurate as we would like it. It was foolish of us to believe we knew enough about a complex and chaotic system like the Earth's climate to make long range predictions. While the models have improved and the studies continue, the fact is our estimate of climate sensitivity hasn't changed much in the last 20 years.

 

[Furcifer]

The consensus isn't a consensus of opinion, its a consensus of evidence. And there is good evidence showing that the uncertainty around sensitivity is actually weighted to the high end, i.e. the chances that the problem will be much worse than anticipated is much higher than the chance it won't be as bad as anticipated:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5850/629.abstract

Which is based on our current level of understanding. And the "consensus" opinion there is that climate science has a long ways to go.

 

[bit_pattern]

Dodge noted.

I wish this thread would just die, i regret ever having started it ;rolleyes:

 

[Furcifer]

Ummm you are the one who pet theory was contradicted, you seem to forget you actually posted your position here in this thread.

Indeed I have, or more accurately I was unaware I had one. You're obviously referring to your strawman again?

The group was following Watt's methodology. That's why he promised to accept their results, until he found out they rejected his claims at which point he began to deny the results.

So "they" rejected his results and he rejected their rejection

Sounds like they "denied" his results. Doesn't that make "them" the "denialists".

 

[Furcifer]

Dodge noted.

I wish this thread would just die, i regret ever having started it ;rolleyes:

What dodge, you didn't even have a question to dodge

 

[keale]

Nice dodge. However the assertion by your brother in the faith, Keale, did not require scientific evidence. Let's examine the assertion.

The preponderance of the evidence support AGW.
.....

What the hell is there to gain by falsifying AGW?

Falsifying the hypothesis is the essence of scientific inquiry. Keale suggests that such efforts not be made, as there is nothing to be gained from them. In order words, disregard scientific evidence as required to maintain the position.

In other words...

Keep da Faith, Bro!!!

What i meant was what is there to gain by hoaxing AGW?

That being said I know that arguing the point is futile and theres nothing to gain here since there isnt any scientific evidence that would sway you.

 

[Furcifer]

ftfy

You have not been able to support your claims that you are appealing to or following the peer reviewed literature.

Another lie and deliberate misrepresentation, how predictable.

You've never supported your claims either. I know you read the pseudoscience at RealCrapClimate.com because you cite it all the time. I've only cited actual scientific journals, so the proof is in the pudding as they say.

 

[SezMe]

So "they" rejected his results and he rejected their rejection

No that's not what happened:
1 The BEST folks involved the "deniers" in the formulation of the study approach.
2 Watts agreed with the study design so much that he said he would believe the results no matter how they shook out.
3 The study results showed AGW was real. They also showed that "climategate" was phooey.
4 Watts rejected the results. He stuck with his ideology rather than the very science he originally endorsed.

 

[Furcifer]

Dishonest presentation of the trend noted. a) Do you or do you not accept the warming trend is currently just under 2 deg per 100 years? b) do you accept that this could accelerate to as much as 3-4 deg per 100 years if CO2 emissions continue unabated?

Do you agree the current warming trend over the last 4 years according to the HADCRUT3 dataset shows no statistical warming trend? I just noticed this gem over at WattsUpHisButt.

I don't know what the trend is for the last 100 years, 2 degrees sounds about right though. I do the temperature record has improved in the last 30 years and that's going to be more accurate than the last 100 years. So from 1981 until now what has been the trend?

Based on our current understanding I believe the average of several different computer models shows this could accelerate to 3-4 deg per 100 years, but I also know CO2 emissions are not continuing "unabated". I'm not worried or alarmed by hypotheticals. I'm more concerned with what's been proven over the last 10 or 20 or 30 years.

If I'm looking at trends at all. I'm really more concerned with solutions to rising CO2 than what models are predicting.

 

[Furcifer]

No that's not what happened:
1 The BEST folks involved the "deniers" in the formulation of the study approach.
2 Watts agreed with the study design so much that he said he would believe the results no matter how they shook out.
3 The study results showed AGW was real. They also showed that "climategate" was phooey.
4 Watts rejected the results. He stuck with his ideology rather than the very science he originally endorsed.

On what grounds did he reject the results? It's one thing to reject something and quite another to "deny" it (the rejection comes with a reason and a "denial" is a rejection without a valid reason, at least that's the way people seem to be using it)

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That alternative hypothesis has been falsified.

A. Please expand. Link?
B. These cyclic events influence the reading of a weather station thermometer (or a proxy). Yes or no?
1. Rotation of the Earth (surface air warms and cools on a 24 hour cycle).
2. Revolution around the sun (away from the equator, a 365 day cycle)
3. Pacific Decadal Oscilation
4. 11 year sunspot cycle
5. Precession of the axis (~25,000 years)
5. Periodic changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis (~40,000 years)
6. Periodic changes in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit (~400,000 years)
7. Periodic (?) changes in the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field
8. Passage of the solar system through the galactic plane (225 m.y. cycle) (speculative).

These aperiodic events influence surface air temperatures. Yes or no?
1. Volcanism (Mt. Pinatubo, Tambora)
2. Cometary, asteroidal impact
3. Mountain building (alters jet stream, exposes new rock to chemical interaction with air
4. Continental drift (alters ocean currents, creates inland deserts in supercontinents, gives ice a platform in Antarctica)
5. Other (e.g., the draining of Lake Agassiz, possibly responsible for the Younger Dryas).

Agree? If no, why not?

 

[bit_pattern]

A. Please expand. Link?
B. These cyclic events influence the reading of a weather station thermometer (or a proxy). Yes or no?
1. Rotation of the Earth (surface air warms and cools on a 24 hour cycle).
2. Revolution around the sun (away from the equator, a 365 day cycle)
3. Pacific Decadal Oscilation
4. 11 year sunspot cycle
5. Precession of the axis (~25,000 years)
5. Periodic changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis (~40,000 years)
6. Periodic changes in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit (~400,000 years)
7. Periodic (?) changes in the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field
8. Passage of the solar system through the galactic plane (225 m.y. cycle) (speculative).

These aperiodic events influence surface air temperatures. Yes or no?
1. Volcanism (Mt. Pinatubo, Tambora)
2. Cometary, asteroidal impact
3. Mountain building (alters jet stream, exposes new rock to chemical interaction with air
4. Continental drift (alters ocean currents, creates inland deserts in supercontinents, gives ice a platform in Antarctica)
5. Other (e.g., the draining of Lake Agassiz, possibly responsible for the Younger Dryas).

Agree? If no, why not?

Rather than respond to each point in your Gish Gallop it would probably be more instructive to direct you to the resource that I am almost certain answers every single one of your points and does so in the context of the existing peer reviewed literature. After all, teach a man to fish, and all that ...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

[lomiller]

Do you agree the current warming trend over the last 4 years according to the HADCRUT3 dataset shows no statistical warming trend?

No I do not agree. There is no statistical evidence the warming trend has changed, therefor the correct assessment is that it's still warming.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

People who don't know anything about mathematics might think that's a hard problem.

It is, to people who have not taken an introductory Algebra course. I agree it's not hard. I taught it to 8th graders.

To mathematicians, however, that's a trivial calculation. Just try all values of t with...the important point here is that Malcolm Kirkpatrick apparently believed this trivial calculation is a hard problem.)[/spoiler]

Exactly right. Malcolm Kirkpatrick has not made any connection between number theory and conservatives or climate change.

Okay, maybe I should have asked Ben to prove Wilson's theorem. Oh, wait. I did. I addressed

Do you ever wish that these guys were smart enough to make an argument that really was difficult?

He wants to call people who disagree "stupid", right? So, genius, now that you've been instructed (and now it's easy), try 187^t gives a remainder of 15 when divided by 43 and a remainder of 12 when divided by 47.
No, there's no relation to the climate discussion, except that you have opponents who can count past ten without taking off their shoes.

I'm not accusing AlBell, mhaze, or Malcolm Kirkpatrick of dishonesty. They may just be repeating an argument they've heard somewhere, without being qualified to evaluate that argument on its merits. I'm just pointing out that the argument they're repeating looks dishonest, and seems downright silly to those of us who are qualified to perform the calculations they're saying we shouldn't trust.

I also trust Freeman Dyson's ability (and Roy Spencer's and Richard Lindzen's) to perform relevant calculations, at least as well as Mann or Jones.
I wrote when I first joined the discussion that I am not competent to assess the science. I was a Biology major before I switched to Math. I have only 1 Combinatorics course, two Probability courses and three Statistics courses on my transcript, all long-forgotten. I have no idea how to test time series for statistical significance. I cannot assess the papers on interactions between geochemistry and atmospheric chemistry. I can assess the behavior, as revealed in the denial of raw data to Steve McIntyre, the manipulation of the peer review process, and the smearing of critics by the Hockey Team (and it's defenders here).

What would convince me? To start, drop the relentless barrage of insults.
Then, support transparency in research and policy discussions.