[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2018-August-19, 09:55, said:

I think you are missing their point - their beef has nothing to do with climate. It is change they so adamantly despise because it means intervention in the "free markets".

That is your deflection of the real issue, real science vs. pseudo-science.

CAGW alarmist: CO2 is going to overheat the world so we must tax and spend to reduce CO2 by radically altering our lifestyles to save the planet.

Skeptical real scientist: I have numerous real world measurements and analyses that disprove your hypothesis.

CAGW alarmist: Evil denier! Doom is nigh! Submit to the consensus.

Skeptical real scientist: Your theory is conjecture and your hypothesis relies on anecdotal information that is continuously being disproved.

CAGW alarmist: Most climatological modelers tell us that CO2 increase will fry the planet!

Skeptical real scientist: Those climate models are parameterized to use CO2 rise to equate to temperature rise. All other analyses point to other factors.

CAGW alarmist: Think of the children! Better to do anything rather than take a chance on it. Your heretical position means you must be in denial of reality!

Skeptical real scientist: Better to spend our $ and efforts on solving real problems by using the scientific method.

CAGW alarmist: 97% of people that care are afraid of .....

Skeptical real scientist: Oh dear...

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2018-August-19, 01:57, said:

Two posts back, there is a quote from you in which you directly assert



You're shifting goalposts

Actually, no. We were discussing all-time maximum temperatures. You piped in about daily high temperatures, to which I responded. The only one shifting goalposts is you.

[johnu]

Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-19, 13:43, said:

That is your deflection of the real issue, real science vs. pseudo-science.

CAGW alarmist: ...

Skeptical real scientist: ...

CAGW alarmist: ...

Skeptical real scientist: ...

CAGW alarmist: I have an advanced degree in climatology/meteorology/atmospheric science from one of the top universities in the country, and have spent my adult life working with other top scientists at the most prestigious universities, private foundations, or government agencies.

Skeptical real scientist: I read stuff on the internet on a government conspiracy website and I have a BS degree in Real Life from Dennison University. Oh, and somebody I frequently quote has a PhD from the very prestigious MIT and it doesn't matter that the degree was in theoretical math.

CAGW alarmist: We have done thousands of studies, laboratory tests, data analysis and projections, computer simulations and they tell us the global warming is a real problem and we need to do something now.

Skeptical real scientist: We are ignoring everything you have done because it doesn't agree with our beliefs. We will cherry pick the numbers to prove there is no global warming.

CAGW alarmist: Oh dear...

[johnu]

Daniel1960, on 2018-August-19, 19:56, said:

Actually, no. We were discussing all-time maximum temperatures. You piped in about daily high temperatures, to which I responded. The only one shifting goalposts is you.

Only a very low information Dennison climate change denier will fall for that ridiculous blowing up the goalposts and painting a picture of a tunnel on a sheer rock mountain face with a sign saying this way to the goalpost.

Let's go back to my Seattle example. A search says the maximum all time temperature was 103F set in 2009 (about 39.4C). Your climate change denier masters are telling you that if the all time temperature isn't increasing, there is no problem with global warming.

So by this so called logic, if every day in Seattle in the past year topped 100F but didn't break 103F, then there is nothing to worry about because there is no global warming. Now there are some people, including me, who would be totally alarmed that winter temperatures were 40 or 50 degrees higher than normal, but you are telling me "No problem, the temperature was less than 103F".

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2018-August-19, 22:38, said:

Only a very low information Dennison climate change denier will fall for that ridiculous blowing up the goalposts and painting a picture of a tunnel on a sheer rock mountain face with a sign saying this way to the goalpost.

Let's go back to my Seattle example. A search says the maximum all time temperature was 103F set in 2009 (about 39.4C). Your climate change denier masters are telling you that if the all time temperature isn't increasing, there is no problem with global warming.

So by this so called logic, if every day in Seattle in the past year topped 100F but didn't break 103F, then there is nothing to worry about because there is no global warming. Now there are some people, including me, who would be totally alarmed that winter temperatures were 40 or 50 degrees higher than normal, but you are telling me "No problem, the temperature was less than 103F".

Fortunately, Rudy Giuliani today cleared up your confusion: "Truth is not truth."

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2018-August-18, 12:30, said:

Here's a site the allows one to look at said recording stations

https://www.ncdc.noa...tatools/records

I just did a quick search on 7/16/2018 --> 8/15/2018

Claims that well over a thousand records were broken in this 30 day period alone

Statements of individual numbers without context can be meaningless. These records need to be compared to past numbers. From the same website, here are the daily new highs for past heat waves (June - Aug totals). For comparison, I also added two of the coldest summers recently (1967 and 2004)

2018: 2661 (thru 8/15)
2017: 3929
2016: 4732
2012: 9665
2007: 7813
2003: 7251
1995: 6313
1988: 17295
1980: 10195
1954: 9552
1940: 5499
1936: 18943
1934: 13964

2004: 2036
1967: 2438

As you can see, new daily high temperature records for 2018 are running closer to those of the colder years, than past heat waves. Temperature increases are not the result of hotter summer days. Rather, average temperature is increasing due to increases in nighttime lows and wintertime temperatures. These are more than offsetting the decline in summertime highs.

[Cyberyeti]

Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-19, 13:43, said:

That is your deflection of the real issue, real science vs. pseudo-science.

CAGW alarmist: CO2 is going to overheat the world so we must tax and spend to reduce CO2 by radically altering our lifestyles to save the planet.

Skeptical real scientist: I have numerous real world measurements and analyses that disprove your hypothesis.

CAGW alarmist: Evil denier! Doom is nigh! Submit to the consensus.

Skeptical real scientist: Your theory is conjecture and your hypothesis relies on anecdotal information that is continuously being disproved.

CAGW alarmist: Most climatological modelers tell us that CO2 increase will fry the planet!

Skeptical real scientist: Those climate models are parameterized to use CO2 rise to equate to temperature rise. All other analyses point to other factors.

CAGW alarmist: Think of the children! Better to do anything rather than take a chance on it. Your heretical position means you must be in denial of reality!

Skeptical real scientist: Better to spend our $ and efforts on solving real problems by using the scientific method.

CAGW alarmist: 97% of people that care are afraid of .....

Skeptical real scientist: Oh dear...

This is laughable because there are many times as many equally well qualified scientists who believe in CAGW after doing their research, and also when you look at who funds the skeptics, it can usually be traced back to somebody with a vested interest in CO2 production somewhere. It all points to the same kind of denial associated with the health effects of smoking. From what I see, most of the "I know everything after looking at the internet" people are on the denial side.

My main question is as to why ANYBODY would want to cry wolf on this and create an unnecessary panic ? And what's in it for the governments that support this ? It would be much cheaper and easier for everybody to carry on as we are (till the oil runs out).

[Daniel1960]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-20, 06:53, said:

This is laughable because there are many times as many equally well qualified scientists who believe in CAGW after doing their research, and also when you look at who funds the skeptics, it can usually be traced back to somebody with a vested interest in CO2 production somewhere. It all points to the same kind of denial associated with the health effects of smoking. From what I see, most of the "I know everything after looking at the internet" people are on the denial side.

My main question is as to why ANYBODY would want to cry wolf on this and create an unnecessary panic ? And what's in it for the governments that support this ? It would be much cheaper and easier for everybody to carry on as we are (till the oil runs out).

There are well qualified scientists on both sides of this debate. However, science is determined by the numbers in the data, not the number of scientists believing in thing or another. Also, the internet have people who know everything posting on both sides of this argument, and tend to be those posters on the extreme fringes. The funding claim works both ways.

A corollary to your is question, is why would anyone want to squelch something that is supposed to be such a catastrophe?

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2018-August-20, 09:41, said:

A corollary to your is question, is why would anyone want to squelch something that is supposed to be such a catastrophe?

Why would anyone dispute that smoking cigarette's causes cancer?

(Also why is there such a strong correlation between people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer and are global warming skeptics?)

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-August-20, 10:07, said:

Why would anyone dispute that smoking cigarette's causes cancer?

(Also why is there such a strong correlation between people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer and are global warming skeptics?)

Could you provide a link to the evidence suggesting that correlation? Thank you.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2018-August-20, 10:07, said:

Why would anyone dispute that smoking cigarette's causes cancer?

(Also why is there such a strong correlation between people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer and are global warming skeptics?)

Is there?

[Winstonm]

Perhaps this will be of aid to the information-challenged libertarians amongst us.
(sorry, too politically correct)

(emphasis added)

Quote

In the 1970s eager to protect its activities from regulations and above all its profit margins, corporate America began to challenge the growing influence of environmental organizations and other advocacy groups who had been instrumental in ushering in this golden age of environmental legislation.12 Corporate leaders drew their inspiration from the successful tactics of the tobacco industry to thwart any restrictions on their activities: Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway use the term “tobacco strategy” to explain how corporations set up or fund seemingly independent think tanks and hire experts and scientists in order to discredit scientific research and evidence likely to justify governmental regulations on their activities.13 Needlessly to say, this constitutes a complete perversion of the scientific process, as the goal results in the fact that no scientifically-based call for environmental or safety regulations go unanswered and doubt is cast on the consensus reached in peer-reviewed scientific research. The climate change denial movement is part and parcel of this larger corporate effort to hinder regulations.14

And this causes the ultimate in cognitive dissonance for the free-marketers and libertarians:

Quote

Global warming poses a philosophical challenge to libertarians and small-government conservatives: their world view is premised on the idea that government power should always be held in check lest it destroy individual freedom while the world is faced with a crisis of global proportions that could only be averted by a strong and prolonged government action. The steps necessary to address the challenges posed by global warming would lay waste to the Tea Party’s ironclad faith in the free market as the ultimate problem-solver.

However, as Dennison would claim this is "fake news", there is no doubt that it is an unreliable source.

[Daniel1960]

Winstonm, on 2018-August-20, 11:59, said:

Perhaps this will be of aid to the information-challenged libertarians amongst us.
(sorry, too politically correct)

(emphasis added)


And this causes the ultimate in cognitive dissonance for the free-marketers and libertarians:



However, as Dennison would claim this is "fake news", there is no doubt that it is an unreliable source.

Here is an interest study about those claiming to be concerned and skeptical about climate change.

"the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors."

https://www.scienced...272494418301488

[Cyberyeti]

Winston, where was that last piece quoted from ?

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-20, 13:14, said:

Winston, where was that last piece quoted from ?

Both quotes come from the same source. As does this: (emphasis added)

Quote

The effort to undermine the credibility of scientific research on man-made global warming has continued since the early 1990s after the IPCC had started calling the alarm. Nevertheless because of mounting scientific evidence44 it is becoming increasingly untenable to deny reality, which has led conservative and libertarian think tanks to modify their tactics. Increasingly, to paraphrase James Hoggan, “nondenier deniers” are replacing “deniers”. These nondenier deniers are “people who put themselves forth as reasonable interpreters of the science, even as allies in the fight to bring climate change to the public’s attention. But then they throw in a variety of arguments that actually undermine the public appetite for action.”45 Libertarian and conservative climate experts increasingly recoil from denying the fact that the planet is warming, but they usually lose no time in qualifying their acceptance with two caveats. First, they assert that the negative repercussions of a global rise in temperatures are being grossly overstated in order to alarm the public and decision-makers into accepting the environmentalist agenda. Second, nondenier deniers argue that actions to mitigate the effects of global warming will be economically destructive and environmentally insignificant.

Unfortunately, the evangelical faith in a free-market god is so deeply felt it eliminates the shame that would normally be felt at being exposed as charlatans, keeping small government climate change deniers to persistently preach the "gospel", while universal biases act on their information gathering to ensure their interpretation of facts must surely be correct - as it is in keeping with their worldview.

The big difference between the two sides is not that non-denier side does not have universal biases - obviously, universal biases affect everyone - but that the small-government denier side starts with a preconceived notion that governments must not interfere with enterprise while the other side starts with the idea of finding out what is going on before deciding whether or not government action is needed. The first side aligns with his biases; the other side tries to overcome his biases.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2018-August-20, 13:31, said:

Both quotes come from the same source. As does this: (emphasis added)


Unfortunately, the evangelical faith in a free-market god is so deeply felt it eliminates the shame that would normally be felt at being exposed as charlatans, keeping small government climate change deniers to persistently preach the "gospel", while universal biases act on their information gathering to ensure their interpretation of facts must surely be correct - as it is in keeping with their worldview.

The big difference between the two sides is not that non-denier side does not have universal biases - obviously, universal biases affect everyone - but that the small-government denier side starts with a preconceived notion that governments must not interfere with enterprise while the other side starts with the idea of finding out what is going on before deciding whether or not government action is needed. The first side aligns with his biases; the other side tries to overcome his biases.

They are quoting James Hoggan .... nuff said.

[Al_U_Card]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-20, 06:53, said:

This is laughable because there are many times as many equally well qualified scientists who believe in CAGW after doing their research, and also when you look at who funds the skeptics, it can usually be traced back to somebody with a vested interest in CO2 production somewhere. It all points to the same kind of denial associated with the health effects of smoking. From what I see, most of the "I know everything after looking at the internet" people are on the denial side.

My main question is as to why ANYBODY would want to cry wolf on this and create an unnecessary panic ? And what's in it for the governments that support this ? It would be much cheaper and easier for everybody to carry on as we are (till the oil runs out).

No real scientist "believes" anything.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-August-20, 11:14, said:

Could you provide a link to the evidence suggesting that correlation? Thank you.

Just look at the history of The Manhattan Institute, or if you prefer of Frederick Seitz or Richard Lindzen or Fred Singer.

Alternatively, this is all documented quite well in Mechants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway.

[Al_U_Card]

johnu, on 2018-August-19, 22:22, said:

CAGW alarmist: I have an advanced degree in climatology/meteorology/atmospheric science from one of the top universities in the country, and have spent my adult life working with other top scientists at the most prestigious universities, private foundations, or government agencies.

Skeptical real scientist: I read stuff on the internet on a government conspiracy website and I have a BS degree in Real Life from Dennison University. Oh, and somebody I frequently quote has a PhD from the very prestigious MIT and it doesn't matter that the degree was in theoretical math.

CAGW alarmist: We have done thousands of studies, laboratory tests, data analysis and projections, computer simulations and they tell us the global warming is a real problem and we need to do something now.

Skeptical real scientist: We are ignoring everything you have done because it doesn't agree with our beliefs. We will cherry pick the numbers to prove there is no global warming.

CAGW alarmist: Oh dear...

Strawman, ad hom and argument from authority
... you forgot argument from ignorance. You don't need to understand Principle component analysis to realize that post hoc filtering of data will provide whatever conclusion you want (like a hockey stick). Climate "science" is pretty shoddy as it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is easily refuted by accurate analysis.

[Cyberyeti]

Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-20, 14:50, said:

No real scientist "believes" anything.

yes they do, they believe it after they or someone else has proved it (I am a chemist and mathematician/statistician).