ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Scott Adams on scientific consensus

And the limited value of facts and logic in changing people's minds:
The author, Tim Requarth, correctly points out that facts and logic have limited value in changing anyone’s mind about climate science, or anything else. He speaks from experience because he teaches workshops on how to better communicate science. I like this guy. He’s on the right path.

But the thing that got my attention was this bit from the article:

“Kahan found that increased scientific literacy actually had a small negative effect: The conservative-leaning respondents who knew the most about science thought climate change posed the least risk. Scientific literacy, it seemed, increased polarization. In a later study, Kahan added a twist: He asked respondents what climate scientists believed. Respondents who knew more about science generally, regardless of political leaning, were better able to identify the scientific consensus—in other words, the polarization disappeared. Yet, when the same people were asked for their own opinions about climate change, the polarization returned. It showed that even when people understand the scientific consensus, they may not accept it.”

Notice how the author slips in his unsupported interpretation of the data: Greater knowledge about science causes more polarization.

Well, maybe. That’s a reasonable hypothesis, but it seems incomplete. Here’s another hypothesis that fits the same observed data: The people who know the most about science don’t think complex climate prediction models are credible science, and they are right.
Scientists, just like everyone else, are more easily persuaded by rhetoric than by dialectic. And the scientific consensus is not science, which is why those of us with a better grasp on the distinctions between scientody, scientistry, and scientage are much more likely to reject the scientific consensus than the average individual even though because we understand it better.

Scott nails it here: In my opinion, the conservatives who know the most about science are looking at it from an historical perspective, and they see a pattern here: Complicated prediction models rarely work.

Bingo. And the progressives, who have the collective memory of an amnesiac on LSD, can't understand that historical perspective because they make a practice of ignoring absolutely everything that happened before yesterday.

Labels:

88 Comments:

Blogger rho April 22, 2017 3:35 AM  

This is what it looks like when everybody who is a pussy and doesn't know anything fights.

Blogger SteelPalm April 22, 2017 3:35 AM  

"Consensus" is the very antithesis of genuine "science".

Great scientific discoveries are based on discovering something that no one else has thought of, or indeed, refuting the "consensus". (Galileo refuting Aristotle's theories on motion, for instance)

"Scientific consensus" is one of those pernicious rhetorical oxymorons like "delicious poison", "social justice", or "strength in diversity".

As for climate science, humans are still very far from remotely understanding it. Which is why the 70-odd model by the IPCC are all dismal failures in predicting actual average global temperatures.

Speaking of rhetoric, I always laugh that they rebranded "global warming" into "climate change" when the average global temperature stayed the exact same from 1997 to 2013, contrary to every single IPCC model.

And the folks repeating this junk didn't even bat an eye.

Blogger rho April 22, 2017 3:38 AM  

But if you can moderate your comments, consensus is ultimate.

Blogger Nate73 April 22, 2017 3:49 AM  

What are some good books on science history to read? Are the best primary sources in Latin, German, French, or English? And what are they?

What always has struck me is that like everything else in gov schools we get an over-simplified, almost fake news exposure to scientific thought. Inconvenient facts are elided (e.g. the prevalence of eugenic thinking pre-WWII, the fact that many famous scientists were religious, etc). Previous scientific theories and how they were discredited are rarely discussed (can anyone here define phlogiston without google?), thus making it harder to see how the current theories were derived. And instead of learning the scientific method people come out of the gov schools willing to shock someone to death because a man in a white lab coat said to.

Anonymous Looking Glass April 22, 2017 3:53 AM  

Are we to the point we can discuss that pretty much no one of any real scientific merit would go into "climate science"? It's only true believers that do, and even most of them can't agree on much.

Anonymous Jill April 22, 2017 4:41 AM  

The ideal of the progressive is to move forward, not to cling to yesterday, which was so long ago.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass April 22, 2017 4:42 AM  

Unfortunately, there are exceptions to being better read at science = rejecting consensus. A relative who holds an engineering degree buys this BS hook, line, and sinker.

OT: torpedo the hags. Where's the Hunley when you need her?

Anonymous DirkH April 22, 2017 4:44 AM  

As to climate models, see Dr. Essex,
Believing in Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast, and Climate Models
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4

Anonymous Esmar Tuek April 22, 2017 5:04 AM  

stick Scott Adams on your day trip list ?

Blogger SteelPalm April 22, 2017 5:18 AM  

What are some good books on science history to read? Are the best primary sources in Latin, German, French, or English? And what are they?

When I was young, I liked some of Asimov's works on famous discoveries and scientists.

Ian Stewart had some good ones too, particularly dealing with the history of mathematics.

If you're truly hardcore, you can read the actual works or early translations of the likes of Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Sadi Carnot, James Prescott Joule, etc.

It is a shockingly under-written area, though, you are correct.

In general, when looking for books on these subjects, the older they are, the better and more well-researched they're likely to be.

Blogger Valtandor Nought April 22, 2017 5:59 AM  

Appeal to scientific consensus is a form of appeal to authority.

The supposed authority of a scientist comes from the notion that he has worked closely with the relevant data and is trained in its interpretation. Which means that any scientist who comments on an issue that he has not specifically studied in detail is merely spouting forth hearsay. His statements may correctly reflect the current understanding of the actual experts, but not because he is uniquely qualified to comment on it.

As for the IPCC, who thought it proper to clothe the pronouncements of a body of politically appointed laypeople with the august garb of scientific authority?

Anonymous p-dawg April 22, 2017 6:25 AM  

It's weird that there aren't many "gravity deniers". Maybe that's because gravity can be easily demonstrated, unlike the amazing anthropomorphic climate.

Anonymous Rocklea April 22, 2017 6:45 AM  

@ SteelPalm​
"Speaking of rhetoric, I always laugh that they rebranded "global warming" into "climate change" when the average global temperature stayed the exact same from 1997 to 2013, contrary to every single IPCC model."

I can't wait for the switch global cooling and the new ice age, and how it will also, still, be our fault.

Anonymous RabidRatel April 22, 2017 6:56 AM  

Rocklea wrote:

I can't wait for the switch global cooling and the new ice age, and how it will also, still, be our fault.


If we go into the ice age, would we still have to pay carbon taxes? Governments will not easily stop taxing something while they can get away with it.

Anonymous Be Deplorable, Not Afraid April 22, 2017 7:01 AM  

Michael Shermer wrote a book called, "Why People Believe Weird Things." IIRC, he had a chapter on smart people who believe weird things. While anybody, of course, can believe weird things, his thesis, as I remember, was that once they grab onto an idea, smart people, believing that, because they are smart, they must therefore be right, are even more reluctant to change that belief. When you add in the politicized nature of "climate science," that's about all you need. To a climate true believer, almost invariably a leftist, giving up that belief would call into question their lftist belief system. It would be as painful as the Catholic church of the 1600's agreeing with Galileo that the sun does not go around the Earth. To give up the belief in human-caused climate change shakes their faith in their entire leftist worldview to the core.

To a climate true believer, Gaia is replacing God; so ranting about anyting environmental is a kind of worship to them. And, they all become Chosen Ones (Secret Kings and Queens?), meant to save Gaia from evil capitalist exploitation.

But you can see some weaknesses in their arguments. If they were truly anti-CO2, they should embrace uranium and thorium fission as greenhouse-gas-free alternatives. But most do not, because in their perfect world, it's not actually about helping people live better, modern lives, but rather about penitence--living more simplistic lives, with less industry and technology--and, crucially, also about reducing population and introducing iron-fisted centralized government to control behavior.

Anonymous Weak April 22, 2017 7:22 AM  

P-dawg, for most of human history, people were gravity deniers. They believed in geocentrism, that objects wanted to be close to the earth. Then Newton came along with his heretical gravity talk. For decades after Newton's theory, geocentrism remained the "scientific consensus". It's only very recently that the consensus has shifted away from geocentrism to gravity.

And we still don't really understand HOW gravity works, so maybe we're still wrong about that too. But we totally nailed this climate thing with its zillions of variables and inputs that are hard to measure.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 22, 2017 7:26 AM  

The funny thing is that Scientific Consensus isn't just limited to squishy science like Climate Change.

Turns out I was wrong. The natives of America did domesticate another animal.

The funny part is that I remember asking about this in college and getting a gentle pat on the head for being a stupid undergraduate who didn't have the sense to bow before consensus science.

I was informed in some 101 anthropology class that chickens had been domesticated in Asia some 7,500, and were eventually introduced to the New World by the Spanish. This professor was given to pauses during her lectures to give freshmen the chance to prove that they had been paying attention by asking stupid questions. So I asked one.

In another class that actually did have my attention I had read Hernando de Soto's accounts of his travels in the New World. And he did mention the native chickens that were already present.

This was where the pat on the head came in. It turned out the de Soto had clearly gotten it wrong and according to Consensus Science, he didn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about because there were no chickens in the Americas before the Spanish imported them. This was a proven Scientific Consensus Fact. It is as well for my lower tier GPA that I chose to accept this rather than challenge it.

It turns out I would have been in the right but I would have gotten an F from that bitch for annoying her.

There appear to be two animals on Earth that are nearly self-domesticating. One is the dog. There is now some trace genetic evidence that the dog was domesticated in two different places, at two radically different times. (This one is going to be hard to prove due to frequent wolf genetic admixture).

As you have already guessed, the other is the chicken.


The amount of consensus science that gene mapping has ruined is impressive. I'm surprised that genetics scientists haven't been burned en masse as heretics.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer April 22, 2017 7:27 AM  

The real hypothesis behind climate change is that the right is evil and responsible for everything bad that happens or may happen.

They hate us and all of their thinking is geared twoards hating us. It's really that simple. All of their pet issues boil down to that.

Blogger Gordon April 22, 2017 7:28 AM  

Be Deplorable, Not Afraid wrote:
To a climate true believer, Gaia is replacing God; so ranting about anyting environmental is a kind of worship to them. And, they all become Chosen Ones (Secret Kings and Queens?), meant to save Gaia from evil capitalist exploitation.


Yes, exactly. They are immune to evidence. You can get them to concede that some part of their belief is patently false, but they will attempt to change the subject over and over. Eventually they will circle around to the issue they admitted was wrong, and will forget they every denied their belief.

Sitting around a table, I heard I guy bragging he had seen some glass jars in the trash, and had pulled them out, rinsed them, and put them in his recycling. He was so proud! I asked why he bothered, as the wasted energy in the hot water hurt Gaia more than anything good. He acted as if I had said he beat his children.

They are made from sand, I told him. Most glass recycling just gets landfilled; it's worth less than the cost to transport the scrap. But clearly I was the clueless one, as he was making an offering to his goddess.

Blogger Lazarus April 22, 2017 7:46 AM  

Weak wrote:And we still don't really understand HOW gravity works,

Then how do you know objects don't want to be closer to the earth, hmmm?

Blogger Orville April 22, 2017 7:50 AM  

The progtards have an extra orifice called the memory hole. When confronted with contradictory historical evidence, they bend over and shove it up the hole.

Meanwhile it's "hey look, Bill Nye can dance". Dancing fool indeed along with Neil De Gas Tyson, Mike Tyson's nerdy brother.

Anonymous Looking Glass April 22, 2017 7:51 AM  

@15 Cataline Sergius

The sad answer is the reason they haven't been is pretty simple: it's too hard to understand for most "scientists". The problem with the rapid expansion of Universities, the collapse of non-University research and the enforced Political position inherent within academia is that most of the really smart guys... left science ages ago. That's the big, big rub about the explosion of "scientific understanding" in the last several decades. All of the supremely smart guys went into Engineering fields. There's a reason Computer Tech has flown past everyone else.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Renaissance_Technologies

Why did I just list a Hedge Fund? Easy. Because that company might have the smartest staff on the face of the Earth. Since the mid-90s, all of the up & coming "really smart people" have gotten picked off by Wall Street. That's calmed down some, recently, but the Net Quality of "Science!" is rather far down. For a lot of reasons.

Which is why the interesting stuff is always in the fields that take really specialized skills to even understand. "Thinking Hard" keeps the Diversity Police away.

Blogger Duke Norfolk April 22, 2017 7:55 AM  

At the root of "climate change" is the axiomatic belief that humans are destroying the earth, period. And so, because we just KNOW this, it must be true. Period.

And to add to the force of that dynamic, there's NO WAY they're going to agree with those evil nasty right wing people, no matter what the facts may be.

This is the mindset that dominates in my family members who are immune to all the facts of the matter. Add in the appeal to authority and aversion to deviating from the herd and this belief is well cemented in their minds.

It's maddening. And of course, as with so many other leftist issues, they are just useful idiots for the globalist elite.

Blogger ZhukovG April 22, 2017 8:00 AM  

@Gordon: You said, "...he was making an offering to his goddess.". I think this hits the nail on the head. It explains, at least partially, why Leftists in general are resistant to dialectic.

The Hunger Games books are could arguably be called Romance dressed as Dystopian Science Fiction. However, the world they describe is not unlike what the Globalists and their Leftist 'Useful Idiots' have in store for us if we let them win. Their 'Climate False-Science' is one of the weapons they use to try to get there.

Blogger Midnight Avenue J April 22, 2017 8:02 AM  

There are many elementary school aged kids in my family, fourth grade and under. They ALL, to a person, believe that climate change is manmade, that recycling saves the Earth, that we shouldn't have very big families so we can reduce our impact on the planet, etc. they go to different schools in different towns or states, but they all know and believe the party line already.

Which Attenborough said it recently? Ah, yes, Sir David...that humans are a plague upon the earth. I mean, the man narrated the Beebs Planet Earth series so he must know what he's talking about amiright?

No curiosity at all. Just blind obeisance to the cult.

Anonymous Silly but True April 22, 2017 8:37 AM  

@Duke: "At the root of "climate change" is the axiomatic belief that humans are destroying the earth, period."

Slight adjustment: at the root of "climate change" is the axiomatic belief that from each according to their ability, to each according to need as based on macroscopic scale of nations.
Admittedly, there may actually have been 1 or 2 or 5 scientists in the 60s who honestly thought of such things. But their concern has long since been coopted by a consensus of snakes and jackals.

Concern for the destruction of the planet and who might possibly have caused it isn't even an issue. The point is redistribution of money fromthe haves to the have-nots, and global climate change is just the latest scheme to act as a facade.

Anonymous reader April 22, 2017 8:54 AM  

As a grad student in atmospheric science, it became clear that the cliche of "the more you know about x, the more conservative you become" applies to every facet of weather/climate models. Clouds, ocean, and radiation are particularly difficult. We need decades more data to improve our fudge factors and separate the signal from the noise. In the meantime, a cursory study of the glacial cycle should be enough to calm the hysteria.

Blogger dienw April 22, 2017 9:21 AM  

Lazarus wrote:Weak wrote:And we still don't really understand HOW gravity works,

Then how do you know objects don't want to be closer to the earth, hmmm?


Because they don't want to be near black matter?

Blogger Dexter April 22, 2017 9:21 AM  

"Complicated prediction models rarely work."

They can't predict the future. They can't even "predict the past" (i.e. replicate known past weather patterns starting from a known beginning weather state). They're not science. They're just a way to siphon off government money for a political purpose.

Anonymous Stickwick April 22, 2017 9:24 AM  

That so many people believe there's a scientific consensus about climate change is proof of the old adage about repeating a lie often enough.

The reality is, there isn’t a scientific consensus about global warming or climate change or whatever it's called. The 97% statistic that's stuck in everyone's minds is based on a very small number of scientists -- just 77 -- who met the criteria for a 2-minute survey as part of a student's thesis.

What most people also don’t know is that over 31,000 scientists from an array of scientific fields signed a petition stating they believe "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate."

Anonymous DonaldR April 22, 2017 9:38 AM  

"Bingo. And the progressives, who have the collective memory of an amnesiac on LSD, can't understand that historical perspective because they make a practice of ignoring absolutely everything that happened before yesterday."

Unfortunately it's not only progressive who have a short memory and don't always understand historical perspective. This applies equally to communists, conservatives, libertarians, and the Alt Right for that matter.

The "Alt Right", though a very small and often incoherent movement, doesn't seem to take into account the massive shift in social mores and inter-ethnic relations that have occurred in the U.S. over the past 75 years. AT the very least, a small section of the small Alt Right movements assumes Americans, when under duress, will revert to virulently racist attitudes and actions....a fall back that will lead to murderous actions.

It's a notion that would make sense at some moment in the 19th century. But today, the necessary racial animosity simply isn't widespread enough for this to happen. The reason public acts of racism, anti-semitism, misogyny and such get so much more attention than seems rational is because they are so unfamiliar to the average person. A certain portion of the Alt Right dont' get this. They see these rare expressions as evidence of a widespread, if suppressed, hatred and distrust between the races.

It all shows a complete misunderstanding of the American people and certainly a complete lack of historical perspective.

Anonymous Silly but True April 22, 2017 9:38 AM  

Climate change discussions are also a great time to remind people "it" - with it not being the change itself but rather being climate change science and policy as it has been manifested in and tried to be executed in the U.S. - was one of two threats to our nation warned about by Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell speech.

Eisenhower framed the context of the underlying evil:
"...We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method."

He then very specifically named the two greatest threats to our nation which he saw on the horizon; the first was the rise of a permanent arms industry and its growing influence over all facets of U.S. society.


"...But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only."

He coined that first threat the "military-industrial complex." We did not heed that warning, and it took root, meshed with the State and burrowed so deeply that if Eisenhower himself were resurrected with the Second Coming of Christ wielding the full power of God, the two of them together would have difficulty razing through the cleansing fire of heaven such a deep state.

But that was merely just the first - arguably lesser - threat. The second?

"...We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite."

"A scientific technological elite."

Yes. That is even worse than the military industrial complex. And the impacts of both were more evil - more of a threat to America - than any of the four major conflicts of the twentieth century through Eisenhower's term, and which included two world wars with tens of millions dead.

He was not speaking in hyperbole.

He was speaking as a true American hero and patriot.

Anonymous Deborah April 22, 2017 9:55 AM  

I have too much experience in computer modeling to take their predictions or recommendations very seriously. Climate is a very dynamic system, the historical data is limited and noisy, and we have zero control over the output of the sun. I'm also familiar with the "make up good stories to get more funding" game.

I seriously doubt that it will make much difference to the climate if we take a century or two longer to burn through the rest of the oil, gas, and coal that can be economically extracted.

Anonymous DissidentRight April 22, 2017 10:09 AM  

DonaldR wrote:"assumes Americans, when under duress, will revert to virulently racist attitudes and actions....a fall back that will lead to murderous actions.

[...] But today, the necessary racial animosity simply isn't widespread enough for this to happen.


Fake Americans, under duress, will (as they do) revert to virulently racist attitudes and actions that are even now only barely concealed. Real Americans are currently learning from this. Under duress, they will learn much faster–the ones who survive, anyway.

Blogger Credo in unum Deum April 22, 2017 10:27 AM  

Anyone interested in Real climate should read //realclimatescience.com every day. The man consistently points out the consensus fraud going on.

Blogger Mr Darcy April 22, 2017 10:29 AM  

@24 et alii:
At the root of th climate change religion and of leftism as a religion in general is the emptiness of the devotees. These are soulless, vacuous people. There is something missing form them. They are not quite human. If you scratched them, you would find nothing beneath the skin. They are empty. That's why these weird religions rush into that vacuum and find a permanent home there.

And the second reason is like unto it: These empty, soulless people also have too much time on their hands. Life is easy and cushy for them. There is no struggle of any kind, which is why there is a spiritual emptiness. And such people are in desperate need for some kind of meaning in their otherwise empty, pointless lives, so they grab these ersatz religions like a drowning man grabbing at a life preserver. So these bizarre and baseless beliefs will persist--with vigor--until these people have some REAL struggle to give their lives some REAL meaning. They are insatiably hungry for this fear porn crap because it gives their pointless lives some meaning, however bizarre it may be.

Anonymous BBGKB April 22, 2017 10:37 AM  

The worst thing about global warming propaganda is it prevents people from preparing for the far more likely global cooling. Global warming would open up new lands for crop growing, but cooling would be harder to adapt to. Remember Chicago had 45 shot this Easter, but 5 shot was Valentines day massacre when it was mostly white, and 0 shot when there was a mile of ice above it.

I heard I guy bragging he had seen some glass jars in the trash, and had pulled them out, rinsed them, and put them in his recycling. He was so proud!

How little accomplishments he must have had in his life.

There are many elementary school aged kids in my family, fourth grade and under. They ALL, to a person, believe that climate change is

They wont see a single picture of a white girl next to anything but a brown/niglet boy in (((common core))) approved materials. You should tell them that is done on purpose to destroy white families.

Anonymous RedJack April 22, 2017 10:42 AM  

Science is not God to me. That is why when I see someone state "IT SCIENCE! YOU MUST BELIEVE OR BE DAMNED!" I suspect he is lying to me.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 22, 2017 11:23 AM  

Paradoxically, I've noted that the more educated the person, the more concrete is their thinking despite the fact that the intelligence needed to obtain that education is usually associated with abstract thinking.

Formal education today is generally rote, regurgitate. Only the best among us is able to retain abstract thinking ability while subjected to habituation like this.

And they must also cultivate silence lest they end up sweeping floors for a living.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 22, 2017 11:30 AM  

Social mood comes first. THEN beliefs, then premises. This is the filter through which all subsequent data must pass in order to be even considered by the conscious mind.

This best explains why intelligence and education do not render people more open to persuasion via logical presentation of relevant facts.

The rational mind is not in charge. It is slave to the deeper, more primitive brain wherein lie innate, compulsive behaviors and literally the sense of self.

We are rationalizing creatures, not rational ones.

Anonymous SanityClause April 22, 2017 12:14 PM  

Now, I know you have heard that "97% of scientists believe in climate change", right, but do you know where that comes from? I will tell you.

There was a study, not by climate scientists, but by two sociologists. It claims that of almost eleven thousand scientists, 97% believe in climate change.
First, it was not eleven thousand scientists, but papers, some of which were written by the same person as other papers.
Second, they first threw out the two thirds of papers that did not mention climate change at all. That means that at most, even if it was eleven thousand scientistswhich it wasn't, at most 34% could have believed it.
They then used other methods to throw out even more papers, untill they had thrown out 95% of them, then they claimed that of the remainder, 97% believed.
Conclusion, 95% of scientist DO NOT believe in climate change, at least not enough to mention it.
It should be noted that, even of the ones who did, it often had little to do with the study the paper was about, and was simply thrown in to please ceertain people to git that grant money. Also, only 1 in 3 of those even counted as science, science consists of actual facts, with numbers, not "ahh buh-leeeeeve in cimate change".

Since when was science about belief?

Blogger VFM #7634 April 22, 2017 12:18 PM  

“Kahan found that increased scientific literacy actually had a small negative effect: The conservative-leaning respondents who knew the most about science thought climate change posed the least risk... Respondents who knew more about science generally, regardless of political leaning, were better able to identify the scientific consensus—in other words, the polarization disappeared. Yet, when the same people were asked for their own opinions about climate change, the polarization returned."

There are plenty of people on the right who know a lot about earth science who think the climate change religion is all BS. Furthermore, we also know that the "scientific consensus" is stacked with leftists.

"Scott nails it here: In my opinion, the conservatives who know the most about science are looking at it from an historical perspective, and they see a pattern here: Complicated prediction models rarely work."

Or it could simply be that assuming the Earth will get steadily hotter and hotter over the coming decades makes these climate models blatantly political in and of themselves.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( c'mon, you knew it had to be true. it's like the first prerequisite for "Ich bin ein Fuhrer auf die Alt-Retard" ) April 22, 2017 12:53 PM  

107 more research papers retracted due to faked 'peer reviews'.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/

but they had a CONSENSUS, how could they be wrong?

Blogger Ned April 22, 2017 12:58 PM  

Even NASA is apparently converged on global warming: https://www.sott.net/article/348765-Hey-NASA-check-out-DMIs-Greenland-ice-graph-to-obtain-correct-information

Anonymous DonaldR April 22, 2017 1:10 PM  

"Fake Americans, under duress, will (as they do) revert to virulently racist attitudes and actions that are even now only barely concealed. Real Americans are currently learning from this. Under duress, they will learn much faster–the ones who survive, anyway."

The "fake" / "real" American meme also exposes a misunderstanding of history, plus its weak rhetoric that is easily ignored.

Blogger SirHamster April 22, 2017 1:14 PM  

dienw wrote:Then how do you know objects don't want to be closer to the earth, hmmm?

Because they don't want to be near black matter?


How do we know they don't want both?

Anonymous Jack Amok April 22, 2017 1:26 PM  

his thesis, as I remember, was that once they grab onto an idea, smart people, believing that, because they are smart, they must therefore be right, are even more reluctant to change that belief.

@Be Deplorable, those aren't smart people, they're midwits. And more specifically, midwits who had little other success in life beyond getting pats on the head for being "smart."

it's not actually about helping people live better, modern lives, but rather about penitence--living more simplistic lives,

Yes, but for other people. Their religion is a twisted form of Evangelicalism where salvation comes more form forcing other people to do penance than doing it yourself. I mean, if I cut my carbon footprint 50%, that's just a drop in the bucket. But if I get goons to force all you sinners to cut your carbon footprints 50%, well, I deserve that trip to Bali then.

Blogger Cail Corishev April 22, 2017 1:33 PM  

Then how do you know objects don't want to be closer to the earth, hmmm?

Because that's anthropomorphism, and only primitives do that, certainly not modern, educated sophisticates like us!

Blogger James Dixon April 22, 2017 1:33 PM  

I see that DonaldR is doing his best to earn his paycheck today.

Blogger James Dixon April 22, 2017 1:38 PM  

> ...plus its weak rhetoric that is easily ignored.

So weak that you feel the need to attack it. When you're taking flak...

Cash the check while it's still good.

Blogger VFM #7634 April 22, 2017 1:39 PM  

@Ned

NASA under 0bama was being converged to concentrate more on (leftoid) "earth science". Trump has moved to squelch that and to go back to space exploration.

Blogger tublecane April 22, 2017 1:40 PM  

@1-"Social justice" is not oxymoronic. It's a normal word paired with a weasel word.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 22, 2017 1:54 PM  

the scientific consensus is not science, which is why those of us with a better grasp on the distinctions between scientody, scientistry, and scientage are much more likely to reject the scientific consensus than the average individual because we understand it better.
This is the position of a poseur.  It allows you to claim that you know better than the scientists do, even though you know precisely nothing about the very thing they've spent years studying.  It's the position of anti-knowledge, the superiority of ideology over fact.

It's post-modernism, pure and simple.  Lysenko is smiling up at this bit of intellectual subversion which has infected the Western right.

the conservatives who know the most about science are looking at it from an historical perspective, and they see a pattern here: Complicated prediction models rarely work.
This is the argument from ignorance, most often applied to climate change.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Earth has a significant greenhouse effect.  Neither is there any doubt that carbon dioxide contributes substantially to same (at least among people who actually care about evidence, rather than taking their "science" from ideologues).  The ACC denialists have a burden of proof:  they need to show that there are corresponding negative forcings/feedbacks which counteract any change in atmospheric CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. from human activities.

They have no proof.  What they use is handwaving:  "You can't predict EXACTLY what's going to happen [true] so NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN! [false]"

This is the same kind of logic fail as in the socialist argument for global wealth redistribution as a "fix" for the climate problem.  The premises do not support the conclusion; they scarcely relate to it.

But both of them make good rhetoric for singing to the respective choirs no matter how reprehensible they are.

Blogger tublecane April 22, 2017 2:00 PM  

@22-"The Hunger Games books are could arguably be called Romance dressed as Dystopian Science Fiction"

That's an abuse of "dystopian," taking it to mean "crappy future," or even crappy future with totalitarian government. Dystopia ought to be the opposite of utopia. Whereas utopias are perfectly good, dystopias should be perfectly bad. They are parodies of the modern rationalist mentality, which wants to subject everything, and I mean everything, to deliberate control. Very few people who aren't mad socialists or insanely optimistic libertarians think that would lead to anything but a nightmare.

In the Hunger Games, no one is under the impression that society is perfectly ordered. It's just had a powerful government that exploits its people, some more than others. It is science fiction, however.

Anonymous Mathias April 22, 2017 2:12 PM  

@51,

Bull, if you know anything about the greenhouse effect you would know the #1 greenhouse gas is... water vapor. Co2 is less than 0.3% of the atmosphere, and contributes about as much to the greenhouse effect in total. If the release of greenhouse gasses were to cause a runaway affect, the oceans would have boiled themselves away long ago.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 22, 2017 2:15 PM  

Real science predictions correspond to reality.
Fake science can't make accurate predictions.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 22, 2017 2:18 PM  

Today is International "March for Science" day, no accident that it's Earth Day as well. Green shirts with an atom on the front here and there.

It's an anti Trump rally, demanding "evidence based science" be used to set government policy. Careful what you ask for, you might get it.

Anonymous Marvin Boggs April 22, 2017 2:20 PM  

When I was in grade school, we had an excellent science teacher who taught us the scientific method and insisted that we rigorously apply it when doing assignments. Years later, when studying physics in uni, our professor again insisted on rigorous application of the scientific method.

Now, I look at the climate scientists (and, frighteningly, many other scientists) and most of them don't even seem to know what the scientific method is. I am appalled.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents April 22, 2017 2:20 PM  

Mr. Rational
The ACC denialists have a burden of proof:

Nope. That's not how science works. That's not even how basic logic works.

You have a burden of proof to explain why your fake science can't make accurate predictions.

OpenID gnossoss April 22, 2017 2:33 PM  

@54

When a model doesn't make accurate predictions I don't have to understand the system. Whoever made the model doesn't understand it either.

I also don't have to prove that an extremely complex system where our measurements aren't very accurate and we have very little data anyway can't be simulated or modeled very well. I'd love to see an example of a system with 10% of the variables of global climate where useful models are made.

I can see how you model a rocket trying to escape the atmosphere. That involves a limited set of circumstances and we can collect data about much of it. Global climate is nothing like that. Have any of the super-complex models like that ever had significant predictive power in any field?

Blogger DonReynolds April 22, 2017 2:59 PM  

The problem that "climate scientists" have today is the fact that they spent decades studying and documenting physical evidence of profound periods of climate change in the past. They have been able to document six different periods of long profound warming and a similar number of what are called ice ages (significant cooling). Most of them occurred on this planet before there were any humans and a few have been more recent with human experience. They have done an excellent job of identifying and cataloging the evidence and pinpointing the approximate periods when climate changed.

NOW they need everyone to forget all of that and completely lose the historic record. Why? Because such knowledge completely refutes the current climate change agenda....specifically that human activity causes changes in climate.

It become impossible to convince the world that climate change is not only REAL (which it is) but is CAUSED by human activity. I had one argue with me recently about how automobile emissions and cow farts and CO2 were all due to human activity and directly cause climate change, even if it is not entirely clear whether it will be warming or cooling in the near future. It is ALL caused by industrialization and pollution! Of course, none of which existed in this world until the advent of the industrial age, beginning about 300 years ago. So we are left with the undeniable fact that climate changes have occurred when there were very few humans with no industry to speak of AND when there were no humans whatsoever.

I have no idea how they are going to hide decades of climate change discoveries so that the world can go along with the idea that climate change is caused by or even influenced by human activity. But I am convinced of one thing....they do not believe it either! I can prove it, by their own behavior. If they actually believed that climate change was caused by industrialization and other human activities, they would be the very first people to stop using electricity entirely, stop buying motor fuel, stop eating meat, stop air travel.....and basically collapse their own carbon footprint to as small as possible. They would be leading the way and not waiting for everyone else to join them. They would be examples of the simple life in a grass hut, starving, sick, cold, and standing in mud up to their knees.....in order to "save the planet" from global warming. They would be evacuating ALL of the lands that they are sure will soon be on the bottom of the sea, due to rising sea levels, occasioned by the melting of the polar ice caps. They would be the first people to populate the mountain ranges....which are currently pretty empty of people. That is why I know they do not believe their own nonsense, but they get very unhappy when YOU do not play along.

Blogger James Dixon April 22, 2017 3:30 PM  

> > This is the argument from ignorance, most often applied to climate change.

No, it isn't. Their models don't match the historical record. They pretend the medieval warm period never happened.

> The ACC denialists have a burden of proof:

The global warming folks refused to make their data available to those they considered skeptics. How are they supposed to prove anything when they don't have the data to replicate the study?

But you refuse to admit the nature of the argument. The skeptics aren't the ones demanding that people change, the global warming advocates are. If you want people to change, you have to give them a reason to do so.

Anonymous Avalanche April 22, 2017 3:31 PM  

@24 "their concern has long since been coopted by a consensus of snakes and jackals."

You insult snakes and jackals!

Anonymous Avalanche April 22, 2017 3:32 PM  

@25 "We need decades more data to improve our fudge factors and separate the signal from the noise."

Decades?! We need a couple million years worth of more data to even begin to refine the (decaying) algos!

Anonymous Avalanche April 22, 2017 3:34 PM  

@26 "And we still don't really understand HOW gravity works,
Then how do you know objects don't want to be closer to the earth, hmmm?
Because they don't want to be near black matter?"

Dienw, took me a sec,but you win today's internet!

Anonymous MendoScot April 22, 2017 3:42 PM  

Technical point, complicated and complex are not synonyms in this context.

Climate change is a complex phenomenon, that is, non-deterministic. Complicated explanations are futile attempts at harmonizing this system with prior concepts. See Freeman Dyson for details.

When people stop using science a path to the mind of God, they lose all hope of advancing through the unintelligible.

Anonymous Luke April 22, 2017 4:12 PM  

I have a Geology M.S. and I have never believed that human-caused global warming was anything but hooey, a scam to justify more gov't control/theft. The energies required are just too large for us now, and anytime soon.

Anonymous patrick kelly April 22, 2017 4:17 PM  

Intellectually honest and rigorous science would involve trying disprove ones own theory by formulating a process for identifying counter evidence, questions, and predictions.

Peer review used to involve such critique, at least in theory.

Now when someone other than the source of the theory does this they are called a science denier or conspiracy theorist.




Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 22, 2017 4:20 PM  

Real science publishes honest data sets.
Fake science hides the decline.

Blogger Kep Hartman April 22, 2017 4:46 PM  

#59

Never underestimate the ability of persons to excuse their own bad behavior before castigating others for theirs.

This tendency goes back millenia, as the injunction from Mathew 7:5 shows:

"Cast out the log in thine own eye so that you may see clearly to remove the speck in your brother's eye."

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( c'mon, you knew it had to be true. it's like the first prerequisite for "Ich bin ein Fuhrer auf die Alt-Retard" ) April 22, 2017 4:55 PM  

51. Mr. Rational April 22, 2017 1:54 PM
There is no doubt whatsoever that Earth has a significant greenhouse effect.


no one here has ever argued that there is not a Greenhouse Effect.

by asserting that we are, you make a liar of yourself. which means you fit in quite well with Warmists who demonstrably lie on a continual basis.



59. DonReynolds April 22, 2017 2:59 PM
If they actually believed that climate change was caused by industrialization and other human activities


further, they would be demanding that China ( now the largest 'polluter' on the planet ) and India also be required to adhere to Kyoto.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 22, 2017 6:02 PM  

Be Deplorable, Not Afraid wrote:If they were truly anti-CO2, they should embrace uranium and thorium fission as greenhouse-gas-free alternatives.
A great many do, including most actual climate scientists.  There's a whole movement called Ecomodernism which is about breaking the ideological barriers.  I keep telling you all this but you don't listen.

But most do not, because in their perfect world, it's not actually about helping people live better, modern lives, but rather about penitence--living more simplistic lives, with less industry and technology--and, crucially, also about reducing population and introducing iron-fisted centralized government to control behavior.
This is why I say to ignore those people.  They have the same "solution" to all problems.  It's the logical disconnect I keep telling you about.

Of course, at the rate we're going we'll have to shoot them.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 22, 2017 6:08 PM  

@70
This is why I say to ignore those people. They have the same "solution" to all problems. It's the logical disconnect I keep telling you about.


Dude, those are your ideological allies in the fake science scam.
The fake science that not only can't predict future climate but can't predict the past, either.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable April 22, 2017 6:33 PM  

Hypothesis: The Alt-Right is built on comfort with heterodoxy and a ruthless quest for truth. Also, adolescents are naturally rebellious for sound evopsych reasons, because those that are least happy living with their parents are the most likely to go out and breed. Therefore, in an age of mandatory lies, we can expect the younguns to be thirsty for truth. So, I can say with some cautious optimism that although each new generation is rightly regarded as a barbarian invasion, we have much to look forward to from this one.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 22, 2017 9:56 PM  

Mathias wrote:Bull, if you know anything about the greenhouse effect you would know the #1 greenhouse gas is... water vapor.
Water vapor is a feedback effect.  You've probably noticed it condensing out, and e.g. ruining your picnic.  The influence of H2O is vastly smaller at the poles, and falls to almost zero at the tropopause.

The amount of H2O the atmosphere can hold depends on the heat-trapping ability of the atmospheric column above.  The more CO2, CH4, etc. the higher the altitude of the "cold trap" that keeps the stratosphere dry.

If you eliminated all the non-condensible GHGs, the Earth would quickly head towards 250 K as the water rained and snowed out, starting from the top down.  Then it would get considerably colder as low-albedo land and water was replaced by high-albedo ice and snow.

Co2 is less than 0.3% of the atmosphere, and contributes about as much to the greenhouse effect in total.
If you knew anything about the greenhouse effect, you'd know that CO2 accounts for something on the order of 20% of the greenhouse effect.  The monatomic and diatomic gases do not have significant IR absorption spectra.

This page has a good summary of the evidence for anthropogenic CO2's effect as a forcing on the climate system.  Note that the radiation curves are not MODELS, they are MEASUREMENTS.

Here is a history of climate science.  You won't find any grand conspiracies in it.

If the release of greenhouse gasses were to cause a runaway affect, the oceans would have boiled themselves away long ago.
Under natural conditions, the emissions of CO2 are slow enough that weathering keeps up with them on the average.  Conditions today are anything BUT natural.

As the solar constant increases over time (about 1%/1e8 years), the amount of CO2 the Earth can handle without going into runaway greenhouse gets smaller.  In about 500 million years that limit will be reached and life on the planet will end, absent orbital engineering or other human intervention.

Do you agree that driving Earth's climate into the runaway state with non-condensible GHGs is at least a possibility... one we should be very careful to avoid?

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 22, 2017 10:17 PM  

A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents wrote:You have a burden of proof to explain why your fake science can't make accurate predictions.
You have a burden of proof to explain how the OBSERVED increases in downwelling IR are somehow not going to have any effects.  Since you cannot do so, it behooves us to ameliorate the effects that we can and adapt to the ones that we can't.

James Dixon wrote:They pretend the medieval warm period never happened.
You are way behind the times.

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( c'mon, you knew it had to be true. it's like the first prerequisite for "Ich bin ein Fuhrer auf die Alt-Retard" ) wrote:they would be demanding that China ( now the largest 'polluter' on the planet ) and India also be required to adhere to Kyoto.
Letting China and other "developing" countries off the hook in the first round was the price of getting them to sign Kyoto.  Yes, the process was corrupt.  So are all "developing countries".

Meanwhile, Thorcon is working to prove that nuclear power can be cheaper than coal, starting in Indonesia.  Thorcon units would be able to supply steam at the same conditions as coal boilers, allowing them to operate as drop-in replacements.

This is a very big deal, because many third-world countries don't require stack scrubbers.  China's air quality is abysmal, largely because of coal-fired power.  Replacing coal with emissions-free nuclear would have huge, immediate and positive effects on public health.

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:Dude, those are your ideological allies in the fake science scam.
The measured changes in downwelling IR prove that the scam is on the denialist side.

I don't think you've followed this stuff closely from the 1980's onward.  I have.  I have listened to the dezinformatsiya that was tailored for the talk-radio audience back then.  That disinformation is now right-wing dogma.  I know it's disinformation because everyone involved, INCLUDING YOU, goes on about conspiracies but ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to address the contrary pieces of scientific evidence which, being measurements rather than models, are repeatable and irrefutable.

Not unlike the IQ and time-preference tests which prove that Blacks are "disadvantaged" only by their own genes.

I don't think you appreciate the evil genius of the original meme-masters.  They have propagandized the left into taking climate change seriously... and a hysterical opposition to nuclear energy.  The right properly takes the left's global socialism as a disease rather than a cure, but reactively opposes the calls for action on climate change and rejecting them out of hand.  The memes about conspiracies and the extreme nuttiness of the left are used to prevent the right from actually thinking about it.

When you dig below the prolefeed, you find much more thoughtful treatments.  The BAS has tracked the IPCC's position on nuclear energy over time... which is always positive.
http://thebulletin.org/timeline-ipcc%E2%80%99s-shifting-position-nuclear-energy7975

SciAm published a piece saying nuclear power needs to DOUBLE.  Yes, from Climate Central.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-needs-to-double-to-curb-global-warming/

Can you break out of your dogma-trap?

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey April 22, 2017 10:58 PM  

"The "fake" / "real" American meme also exposes a misunderstanding of history, plus its weak rhetoric that is easily ignored."

Self-refuting "arguments" are always entertaining.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( don't trifle with me, son. i'm a profession, certified 4th degree black belt in the ancient Hebrew martial art of Kibitz Maga ) April 23, 2017 2:18 AM  

73. Mr. Rational April 22, 2017 9:56 PM
Conditions today are anything BUT natural.



exactly so.

which is why plants are designed for MUCH higher atmospheric fractions of CO2 and why, prior to the 1950s, they were on the verge of being starved out due to CO2 insufficiency.

currently, the fringes of the deserts are greening BECAUSE the plants finally have enough CO2 that they can get by on significantly less precipitation.

but they would do BETTER with higher CO2 concentrations, which is why greenhouse growers pump CO2 into their grow farms, in order to maximize output.



74. Mr. Rational April 22, 2017 10:17 PM
You have a burden of proof to explain how the OBSERVED increases in downwelling IR are somehow not going to have any effects.



all of your predictions have been wrong.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

i don't have to prove shat to you. you have to manage to make an accurate prediction FIRST before i even need to start entertaining the concept that you might have finally blundered into a model that works.



74. Mr. Rational April 22, 2017 10:17 PM
China's air quality is abysmal



a-yup.

it's so awful, it impacts the continental US.



74. Mr. Rational April 22, 2017 10:17 PM
Letting China and other "developing" countries off the hook in the first round was the price of getting them to sign Kyoto.



you forgot the part where 1st world countries agreed to pay millions of dollars in transfer payments to China and India ... WHILE AT THE SAME TIME CHINA AND INDIA HAVE NOT ONE SINGLE REDUCTION GOAL.

and good luck on EVER getting them to agree to cutting their own emissions.

Blogger James Dixon April 23, 2017 8:40 AM  

> You are way behind the times.

Yep, the second paragraph starts with the same lie as last time, it didn't happen. If you want to convince people, it might help if you don't start by your argument by lying to them. If you that's your starting point, I'm not going to bother listening (or in this case, reading) farther.

> China's air quality is abysmal,

As is India. Guess who isn't cutting their emissions. Guess who isn't even asking them to cut their emissions.

> I don't think you've followed this stuff closely from the 1980's onward.

I followed it up until the infamous hockey stick graph and the demonstrated lies about past temperatures. Once it became obvious I was being lied to, why should I listen to anything else they said? If you want to convince anyone, you'll first have to remove the liars from their leadership positions. The leadership of your position.

> all of your predictions have been wrong. ...
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

Yep. Every single one.

Once you've removed the liars leading the movement and made sure they can never work in any scientific field again, once you have a set of measurable predictions that can actually be tested, and once the relevant data your using is available to everyone (you know, the scientific method); then get back to us so we can test them.

Then one the theory has been verified, we can devise a set of reasonable and enforceable emissions standards that apply to everyone.

Oh, and quit linking to lies to support your position. The medieval warm period did happen, and the temperatures were warmer than they are today. Pretending documented history didn't happen isn't going to convince anyone.

Anonymous Shadilay April 23, 2017 1:35 PM  

"It's a polarized topic, goy."

That's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Anonymous Truth-hammer April 23, 2017 2:31 PM  

Only intelligent people capable of logical/dispassionate cognition can be swayed or influenced by facts. Thus, only Causcasians meet that standard. Non-Caucasians are all excluded.

Blogger William Meisheid April 24, 2017 11:26 AM  

Forgetting the Past

We live in a culture that is woefully ignorant of its own history, whether religious or secular, theological or scientific. We have Christians whose grasp of the fundamentals of the faith is weak to non-existent and think that doesn’t indict them. Even those who consider themselves secular have little understanding of history and the Western Civilization that has provided them the life and freedom they enjoy. It is as if the past is out of sight, out of mind. It is not that they don’t understand George Santyana’s quip, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” They think it irrelevant to their life, which is focused on the experience of the immediacy of the current moment or the current cause or emotional driver. They define their existence using a narrow traveling window of time, not looking too far back or too far forward.

Dealing with the past is often hard and painful, and it affects how you effectively look to and plan for the future, which is real work. It is easier to succumb, to give in and enjoy what you can while you can. Avoid the pain or deny it, plaster it over with whatever pleasure still lies within our grasp. We follow after Hillary Clinton, living out her infamous response “What difference, at this point, does it make?” making it a guiding principle.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 25, 2017 2:38 PM  

Warm-mongers at the Energy Transition Committee have a great idea. Spend 300 billion to 600 billion dollars per year for a while. Companies on the ETC stand to make a lot of money off of this modest proposal. How much does the ETC pay Al Gore to fly around in private jets giving talks?

It's about control and money. Not science. The science is fake, the money and control is real.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 28, 2017 2:02 PM  

The problem with ideologues like you is you don't listen to yourselves.  You spout off received wisdom without ever examining it for consistency.

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( don't trifle with me, son. i'm a profession, certified 4th degree black belt in the ancient Hebrew martial art of Kibitz Maga ) wrote:which is why plants are designed for MUCH higher atmospheric fractions of CO2
Your language tags you as an "intelligent design" tard, but then you imply that the intelligent designer was a screwup whose whole ouevre was on the verge of complete and fatal collapse.  I don't know what nutty sect you belong to but that may well be heretical right there.

prior to the 1950s, they were on the verge of being starved out due to CO2 insufficiency.
Yeah, the same plant life which made the entire Sahara a great green forest at the 180 ppm depth of the last glaciation "was on the verge of being starved out".  Uh-huh.  The problem is you ARE dumb enough to believe this stuff.

Maybe CO2 is part of your problem.  High CO2 levels make humans stupid.

the fringes of the deserts are greening BECAUSE the plants finally have enough CO2 that they can get by on significantly less precipitation.
Whereas the whole thing was green when it just cool enough to have water.

they would do BETTER with higher CO2 concentrations, which is why greenhouse growers pump CO2 into their grow farms, in order to maximize output.
They do better with higher K, P and N as well.  To a point.  All of these nutrients become toxic at some level, including CO2.  Further, many nutrients are required in fixed ratios.  Adding more CO2 won't help if there's not enough nitrogen or potash to use it; this is called Liebig's law of the minimum.

Making massive changes to the systems of the world is somewhat like going into source code and re-writing it without knowing what it does in the first place.  LIke adding irrigation water to the Fertile Crescent, you ARE going to get unintended consequences and it's almost 100% certain that some, if not most or all, will be negative.  YES, YOU CAN turn fertile riverbottom silt into a salinated desert.  DON'T.

all of your predictions have been wrong.

Your predictions that rising CO2 has zero effect?  WRONG.  ALL OF THEM.  PROVEN BY DIRECT MEASUREMENT.  (I had a better source but it got lost in my bookmarks somewhere.  Still digging.)

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 28, 2017 2:12 PM  

@81  $600 billion is about 90-100 Vogtle-class reactors even at FOAK costs.  It would only take about 300 to mostly de-carbonize the US electric grid.  Figuring the balance of the world at 4x the US grid's size, maybe 15 years would do it.  In truth, the experience base and economies of scale of an effort that size would slash the price tag a lot.  China's quartet of AP1000s are coming in at less than half US costs.

What do you get?  You get an energy source that can't be shut down by pipeline or railway troubles, doesn't care about the weather and has up to 23 months of fuel on-site (average about 9 months) at any given time.

Fossil fuel interests are now publicly opposing nuclear energy.  The masks are finally off, the rent seekers are not hiding their demand for their rents.

Anonymous Mathias April 28, 2017 11:00 PM  

@73,

Hmm, three websites, all purporting to "counter" "climate-denailism". As if it were a religion, or a cult, rather than a conclusion. There is a good chance those numbers are outright bunkum. Try using a source that people on the other side of the fence would be likely to trust. I bet that those websites have a big money interest behind them, just like the research on CO2 produced by the coal and oil companies. Everyone lies, what is important is that (((certain people))) are trying to use this "climate change" rhetoric to levy a tax on the air we breath, so who cares if the earth burns if that happens?

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 29, 2017 5:12 AM  

1/2

Mathias wrote:three websites, all purporting to "counter" "climate-denailism".
The American Institute of Physics isn't to be taken lightly, especially since the whole thing comes down to the physics of absorption and emission of thermal IR by specific gases.  You can test some of these absorption phenomena on a tabletop.

As if it were a religion, or a cult, rather than a conclusion.
Of course it's a cult.  Have YOU tried repeating any of the home-scale experiments to demonstrate some of the phenomena at work?  (Of course you haven't.)  So you are basing your position on a combination of feelz and anti-knowledge, trusting the revelation of some prophet whose name is long lost in the history of AM talk radio whence that part of your weltanschauüng was bestowed upon the public, like the sermon on the mount.

Try using a source that people on the other side of the fence would be likely to trust.
You refuse to trust any source that doesn't back the denialist cult.

I bet that those websites have a big money interest behind them, just like the research on CO2 produced by the coal and oil companies.
A bunch of the denialists DO have serious fossil-fuel money behind them (and that's where the money is).  But where's the money in doing something about the problem?  Nuclear power is a major part of any solution (even the IPCC says so), but practically all "green" organizations are trying to KILL it (I'll get back to this).  Your position makes no sense.

Everyone lies, what is important is that (((certain people))) are trying to use this "climate change" rhetoric to levy a tax on the air we breath
Yes, and when did (((they))) hitch their wagon to this issue?  Did any of them finance the work of John Tyndall in the 1860's?  Svante Arrhenius in the 1890's?  George Callendar in the 1930's?  The Bell Telephone Science Hour in the 1950's?  No, it was around 30 years after that.

Do you even realize that there was more than a century of scientific evidence and public debate on this issue before it ever became a political football and tax-farming scheme for (((rent-seekers)))?  That if you shot every last one of the (((rent-seekers))) (not a bad idea) the actual issue would still be there, unchanged?

This is MUCH bigger than Progressive tax or Communist control schemes, though the denialism has much more in common with Communism.  The Communists don't care what burns as long as they rule the roost.  The fossil-fuel interests (like Occidental Petroleum's Armand Hammer, also a Communist) will do anything to protect their rent streams, planet and everything on it be damned.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 29, 2017 5:15 AM  

2/2

No, the climate science is real.  There's an enormous amount of money riding on getting people to believe it's false, though, and a Communist control scheme (with policy planks completely unrelated to actual solutions—which is how you know what it is) hitched to the major anti-denial organizations.  It's a total clusterfuck, with only a few organizations like Environmental Progress doing a straight-up no bullshit treatment.

One of the more subtle (and thus dangerous) bits of subversion actually did start in the 1930's.  The Rockefellers realized the threat of nuclear energy to oil interests even before the discovery of fission, and began supporting one Hermann Muller, a geneticist.  They managed to get him a Nobel prize in 1946 and then used his prestige to anchor a Rockefeller-financed and led committee under the aegis of the National Academy of Sciences to smear everything dealing with ionizing radiation as inherently dangerous.  When the New York Times sprang the story on the front page two weeks before the actual report was released on June 29 1956, the fix was in.

There is on-going work to have the fraud recognized, papers retracted and damaging policies changed.
https://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/LNT-and-NAS-Environ.-Res.-1.pdf
https://atomicinsights.com/edward-calabrese-challenges-science-magazine-to-right-a-59-year-old-case-of-scientific-misconduct/

We can fix the climate problem.  If it hadn't been for the fraud which gave us the Linear No Threshold theory of radiation hazard and official radiation paranoia, we probably would have fixed it already (Three Mile Island shrugged off and construction continued as before).  But first we have to cut through the web of lies, and that demands cognitive effort from the likes of you.  Think, dammit!

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts