Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#4,651
#4,651
volinbham said:
He's being targeted none the less because he is naysaying that there is no significant evidence that storms are worse due to GW.

Curry has been attacked quite a bit because she backed off her earlier position and questions the certainty of some of the predictions of calamity and the certainty of the amount of impact of man.

Just 2
Click to expand...

BS. The majority of physical scientists in relevant fields say we do not currently have significant evidence of "worse" storms at this time due to GW. It is something that could manifest. It is something that could be occurring but we don't have enough data to detect. etc. he isn't unique in that.

Further, he isn't even a physical scientist. Why would he be the target, when he's a damn policy wonk who has actually advocated for a carbon tax?


Just so I am understanding, no one is allowed to argue with or disagree with naysayers? Why not? Why can't one say "no Dr. Curry, your statement that 2 degrees warming by the end of the 21st century being the worst case scenario is baseless and counter to these data and all the models."?

I feel you like to walk a fine line of "I am not denying the science, but the science isn't really there." This makes for a cumbersome and curious exchange when you do not reference specific claims while doing so. For example, do you care that Curry made demonstrably incorrect statements in her testimony to Congress last year? Or should that be immune to criticism as well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,652
#4,652
Mtntrout said:
BS. The majority of physical scientists in relevant fields say we do not currently have significant evidence of "worse" storms at this time due to GW. It is something that could manifest. It is something that could be occurring but we don't have enough data to detect. etc. he isn't unique in that.

Further, he isn't even a physical scientist. Why would he be the target, when he's a damn policy wonk who has actually advocated for a carbon tax?


Just so I am understanding, no one is allowed to argue with or disagree with naysayers? Why not? Why can't one say "no Dr. Curry, your statement that 2 degrees warming by the end of the 21st century being the worst case scenario is baseless and counter to these data and all the models."?

I feel you like to walk a fine line of "I am not denying the science, but the science isn't really there." This makes for a cumbersome and curious exchange when you do not reference specific claims while doing so. For example, do you care that Curry made demonstrably incorrect statements in her testimony to Congress last year? Or should that be immune to criticism as well?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that at all. It's fine to disagree. It's part of the process.

My point is that a guy shouldn't be subject to Congressional investigation simply because he drew a particular conclusion - do you think he should be investigated?

As for Curry she's not the only one who made some mistakes. The email-gate shows some bad behavior but doesn't change the overall validity of work. I'm certainly not claiming she is 1) always right, 2) immune from critique, or 3) that she has made misstatements. I'm not even saying she's right at all.

I have no problem with all scientists' works being open to scientific scrutiiny; it absolutely should be. However, this often goes beyond that to personal attacks and questions on motives. That is my point. That is where I object; the fierce defending of orthodoxy.

Often this criticism is coming from outside the science world (see Congressional inquiry) but it is still real.

A question for you on Curry. Do you ever read her blog and if so do you directly refute her work or do you rely on someone else to refute it for you and assume they are right?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,654
#4,654
volinbham said:
I'm not saying that at all. It's fine to disagree. It's part of the process.

My point is that a guy shouldn't be subject to Congressional investigation simply because he drew a particular conclusion - do you think he should be investigated?

As for Curry she's not the only one who made some mistakes. The email-gate shows some bad behavior but doesn't change the overall validity of work. I'm certainly not claiming she is 1) always right, 2) immune from critique, or 3) that she has made misstatements. I'm not even saying she's right at all.

I have no problem with all scientists' works being open to scientific scrutiiny; it absolutely should be. However, this often goes beyond that to personal attacks and questions on motives. That is my point. That is where I object; the fierce defending of orthodoxy.

Often this criticism is coming from outside the science world (see Congressional inquiry) but it is still real.

A question for you on Curry. Do you ever read her blog and if so do you directly refute her work or do you rely on someone else to refute it for you and assume they are right?
Click to expand...

Is he only being investigated because he drew a particular (policy, I'm assuming) conclusion? That is his claim, but I don't think that is "settled." I don't know why he is being investigated, to be perfectly honest. I can agree that it is in part because of the recent Willie Soon issue, but it isn't a proverbial "witch hunt" when you have Soon riding around on a broom stick the week prior. We know there are people taking money from sources they are not disclosing. It's proven.

WHOA-- hold the effing phone. "Email-gate?" Email Gate is an invention. There was nothing improper going on, and that has been transparently shown. Further, that whole thing kicked off by an illegal hack. Some guy shouldn't be investigated, but others should be hacked and then continuously slandered when no wrong-doing was found? You invoking "email-gate" means you either are (a) grossly uninformed as to the details and actual investigation's findings, (b) misinformed by outlets who are not reporting the facts or (c) personally biased to the point of not being willing to accept the findings and explanations that came out of the illegal hacking of emails. One can not hold up email-gate as "wrong-doing" on the part of scientists without being either ignorant or dishonest.

Blogs and tweets are not peer-reviewed. If there were private messages here, I'd be happy to disclose personal information that would directly answer your question. Suffice it to say I do not rely on others to refute anything for me, this is in my wheel house. It being in my wheel house is what makes reading these kinds of threads so mesmerizing. A whole subset of adults playing armchair experts and siding with a vocal but tiny minority. I suppose it isn't any different than anti-vaxxers, GMO phobia, or anti-evolution stuff. Still a strange social phenomenon to behold that cuts across all economic groups and ideologies.

Maybe this is what it looks like when a population has infinite access to information- they're unable to distinguish quality but feel empowered by knowledge all the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,655
#4,655
Mtntrout said:
Is he only being investigated because he drew a particular (policy, I'm assuming) conclusion? That is his claim, but I don't think that is "settled." I don't know why he is being investigated, to be perfectly honest. I can agree that it is in part because of the recent Willie Soon issue, but it isn't a proverbial "witch hunt" when you have Soon riding around on a broom stick the week prior. We know there are people taking money from sources they are not disclosing. It's proven.

WHOA-- hold the effing phone. "Email-gate?" Email Gate is an invention. There was nothing improper going on, and that has been transparently shown. Further, that whole thing kicked off by an illegal hack. Some guy shouldn't be investigated, but others should be hacked and then continuously slandered when no wrong-doing was found? You invoking "email-gate" means you either are (a) grossly uninformed as to the details and actual investigation's findings, (b) misinformed by outlets who are not reporting the facts or (c) personally biased to the point of not being willing to accept the findings and explanations that came out of the illegal hacking of emails. One can not hold up email-gate as "wrong-doing" on the part of scientists without being either ignorant or dishonest.

Blogs and tweets are not peer-reviewed. If there were private messages here, I'd be happy to disclose personal information that would directly answer your question. Suffice it to say I do not rely on others to refute anything for me, this is in my wheel house. It being in my wheel house is what makes reading these kinds of threads so mesmerizing. A whole subset of adults playing armchair experts and siding with a vocal but tiny minority. I suppose it isn't any different than anti-vaxxers, GMO phobia, or anti-evolution stuff. Still a strange social phenomenon to behold that cuts across all economic groups and ideologies.

Maybe this is what it looks like when a population has infinite access to information- they're unable to distinguish quality but feel empowered by knowledge all the same.
Click to expand...

Did you read Pielke's account? Have you read the press reports about the Congressional inquiry?

It certainly looks like they only chose people who testify in ways that don't support the administration's view. For him, it was the testimony that there's no current link between economic costs of natural disasters and global climate change.

Here's the letter

http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/Roger%20Pielke%2C%20Colorado.pdf

You'll note he was selected because John Holdren of the WH "believes" Pielke made some misstatements.

For that he is being scrutinized. I would imagine you agree that such scrutiny (Congressional inquiry) has a chilling effect.

Further it should be noted that the same scrutiny is not being paid those whose testimony fits John Holdren's beliefs.

If we want to cleanse all contributors of conflict of interest funding shouldn't all sides participate? Isn't funding from an environmental group a potential conflict as well? How about funding from Green Energy lobbies? There are plenty of associations promoting wind, solar, etc. Are they not as suspect as the evil Koch Brothers?

Finally, I'm not questioning the science. I've continually commented about the manner in which the science is communicated to the public AND how it is stretched/exaggerated by policy makers and other advocates. That is the orthodoxy I speak of and as we see in the case of Pielke, he's gotten himself on the wrong side of it and must be investigated for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,658
#4,658
I mean he has no subpoena power, no control over funding, if I were Pelke I'd tell him to take a long walk off a short pier.
 
#4,660
#4,660
LouderVol said:
as far as the cap goes where the cap is matters a whole lot. and does it ever change? every five years it drops 5%?
Click to expand...
Yes, the cap is important and the number of permits would decrease every year. The amount it decreases depends on what your specific emissions reduction goal is. Cap-and-trade is advantageous in that way since you can just math it out and know exactly the rate at which you will be cutting emissions.

I will add that, in my opinion, a good cap-and-trade plan (or carbon tax for that matter) would allow for flexibility to adjust the cap (or tax) up or down. So if we realize we’ve set our goals too high and it really is destroying the economy, we can scale back. Or, if carbon pricing proves to be less of a burden than naysayers feared and companies start banking permits, we could tighten the cap.
LouderVol said:
and how does it initially get set up? how does it take into account new businesses and growth? i have issues with each of those questions, which issues depends on what the answer is.
Click to expand...
Typically permits are auctioned off every year and then traded on the open market.
LouderVol said:
i am almost completely against the tax option just because it is another levied tax by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
But what if it came with equivalent tax cuts elsewhere? Honestly both forms of carbon pricing are very similar in effect. One sets a cap on emissions and let’s the market determine the price, the other sets a price and lets the market determine the reduction in emissions. I prefer the direct tax because it’s simpler. You’ll find that most economists and conservatives (well, the conservatives that acknowledge the reality of AGW) prefer a carbon tax. I think either could work though. They’re both far more efficient than our current approach.
 
#4,661
#4,661
Sandvol said:
No, he still believes Mann and his comrades fudged data.
Click to expand...
Source?
Sandvol said:
Now that Muller's gone over to the dark side you only have about 8 others to go.
Click to expand...
List?
Sandvol said:
Plus, Muller's solution is to focus on China. He says we are doing our part. He says you need to get China off coal. If you alarmists were really concerned you'd go to China and focus there.
Click to expand...
That article is old. Did you miss the historic US-China climate agreement? Did you miss where China is implementing cap-and-trade?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,662
#4,662
volinbham said:
If we want to cleanse all contributors of conflict of interest funding shouldn't all sides participate? Isn't funding from an environmental group a potential conflict as well? How about funding from Green Energy lobbies? There are plenty of associations promoting wind, solar, etc. Are they not as suspect as the evil Koch Brothers?

Finally, I'm not questioning the science. I've continually commented about the manner in which the science is communicated to the public AND how it is stretched/exaggerated by policy makers and other advocates. That is the orthodoxy I speak of and as we see in the case of Pielke, he's gotten himself on the wrong side of it and must be investigated for it.
Click to expand...
Environmental groups fund climate research? Can you find an example of that?

On the democrats’ “investigation”, I find it about as stupid as the republicans’ new “investigation” into NASA or past investigations and attempts to gain access to climate scientists’ personal e-mails. I don’t think funding disclosure is an unreasonable request per se, but since they don’t have subpoena powers this will go nowhere and is obviously just a political game. Congress should have better things to do. Leave this stuff for activists to do through FOIA requests and such.

That said, many of your so-called luke-warmists have only themselves to blame for being suspected of being Willie Soons. That’s what they get for making controversial (or plain incorrect) statements to the media, congress, and blogosphere. Like trout said, you act as if skeptics are immune to criticism and any criticism is perceived as persecution. But that’s just not how it is. They bring it upon themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#4,664
#4,664
BartW said:
Environmental groups fund climate research? Can you find an example of that?

On the democrats’ “investigation”, I find it about as stupid as the republicans’ new “investigation” into NASA or past investigations and attempts to gain access to climate scientists’ personal e-mails. I don’t think funding disclosure is an unreasonable request per se, but since they don’t have subpoena powers this will go nowhere and is obviously just a political game. Congress should have better things to do. Leave this stuff for activists to do through FOIA requests and such.

That said, many of your so-called luke-warmists have only themselves to blame for being suspected of being Willie Soons. That’s what they get for making controversial (or plain incorrect) statements to the media, congress, and blogosphere. Like trout said, you act as if skeptics are immune to criticism and any criticism is perceived as persecution. But that’s just not how it is. They bring it upon themselves.
Click to expand...

Simply not true (last statement). There is a difference between criticism on the merits of the argument and what is happening to Pielke for example. If you don't see it I can't change that.

As for sources of funding I found this in a quick Google search.

Matthew Nisbet, a professor at American University in Washington, D.C., estimated that U.S. environmental groups spent $394 million in 2009 on climate and energy efforts, while the opposing coalition of conservative groups and industry associations spent $259 million in the area.2
Click to expand...

As a note in this source

Anthropogenic climate change | GiveWell

Of course funding on it's own doesn't create bias and even funding from biased sources could be neutral.

That said, I'm sure there is financial support flowing from environmental groups and the various environmental lobbies to support climate research and climate scientists. For example, Congress is seeking all external funding (e.g. not from salary) that Pielke received including consulting, honorarium, speaking fees, etc. If that's fair game them I'm sure plenty of climate scientists have some of these coming from the environmental lobby.

It should all be scrutinized if we want to be objective.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,665
#4,665
oP5Nood.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,666
#4,666
volinbham said:
Simply not true (last statement). There is a difference between criticism on the merits of the argument and what is happening to Pielke for example. If you don't see it I can't change that.
Click to expand...
Huh? You even pointed out why Pielke was targeted in this instance: his congressional testimony. The letter even specifically cites Jon Holdren’s beef:

Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr

Pielke has a history, too, but if all you can see is persecution I can’t change that.
volinbham said:
As for sources of funding I found this in a quick Google search. As a note in this source
Anthropogenic climate change | GiveWell

Of course funding on it's own doesn't create bias and even funding from biased sources could be neutral.

That said, I'm sure there is financial support flowing from environmental groups and the various environmental lobbies to support climate research and climate scientists. For example, Congress is seeking all external funding (e.g. not from salary) that Pielke received including consulting, honorarium, speaking fees, etc. If that's fair game them I'm sure plenty of climate scientists have some of these coming from the environmental lobby.

It should all be scrutinized if we want to be objective.
Click to expand...
Can you specifically give me an example of environmental groups funding climate change research? I don’t mean funding alternative energy technologies, public policy efforts, adaptation, etc. Give me a publication purely about the science. Give me something that is widely used by alarmists to exaggerate the threat of global warming. What activist-funded climate research, if fraudulent (a la Willie Soon), would undermine the consensus on AGW?
 
#4,673
#4,673
US National Weather Service Memphis Tennessee:

The latest stats are in! Memphis averaged 36.2F in February...ranking it the 8th coldest February on record since 1875. More amazing...Memphis averaged 30.3F for the last half of February. This was the coldest last two weeks of February ever recorded...beating the previous record by 5 degrees!!

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,674
#4,674
myrobbins7 said:
US National Weather Service Memphis Tennessee:

The latest stats are in! Memphis averaged 36.2F in February...ranking it the 8th coldest February on record since 1875. More amazing...Memphis averaged 30.3F for the last half of February. This was the coldest last two weeks of February ever recorded...beating the previous record by 5 degrees!!

:hi:
Click to expand...
Well....but.....ugh....its climate change damn it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top