One of the things the Paris Climate Conference agreed to was to plant more trees. Of course trees give off Co2 so we can live on this planet. So is climate change about the planet or eugenics ?
the worlds smartest man disagrees with global warming
- Thread starter Yoga Face
- Start date
Turok is South African but he is head of the Perimeter Institute in Kitchener
Thanks Yoga Face.
Lucky blue, I like your pluck but you'll have to explain your POV to this idiotic poster.
I don't mind getting flamed out but it's strange since we both agree that climate change is accelerated by humans. Tried watching the Dyson clip but I got heartburn after 5 minutes. The physical evidence appears to support it. The decimation of the polar bear population and brown bears moving into their territory. The rapid erosion of the Northern BC and Alaska coastlines. And the most critical evidence, the looming human catastrophe of the East Indian Delta. According to climate models toward the end of the 21st Century, Bangladesh and Vietnam south of the Mekong Delta will be under water by 2100.
Contradict me if you want.
Lucky blue, I like your pluck but you'll have to explain your POV to this idiotic poster.
I don't mind getting flamed out but it's strange since we both agree that climate change is accelerated by humans. Tried watching the Dyson clip but I got heartburn after 5 minutes. The physical evidence appears to support it. The decimation of the polar bear population and brown bears moving into their territory. The rapid erosion of the Northern BC and Alaska coastlines. And the most critical evidence, the looming human catastrophe of the East Indian Delta. According to climate models toward the end of the 21st Century, Bangladesh and Vietnam south of the Mekong Delta will be under water by 2100.
Contradict me if you want.
Eco-religion?
Its the furthest thing from it, legit science with the research and numbers all available to check. Work that's confirmed in multiple ways, through multiple studies using different methods.
The 'religion' part is the kooky conspiracy theories that I hear from people like you, who somehow think that thousands of scientists from all over the world are all working together on one conspiracy together.
People like you are the ones who can't tell the difference between legit science and total nonsense.
There are numbers for CO2 beyond 800,000 years ago, they aren't as accurate but they are still valuable.
The main point is that humanity has never lived on this planet with CO2 levels this high before.
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
What's your story, do you really think every scientist who studies climatology is wrong, in a conspiracy or just not as smart as you?
trees absorb CO2? (until they die & decompose).
These arguments always seem to go around and around. Climate change is clearly real, the idea that it is a scam, and that the NOAA, NASA, The American Academy of Sciences, The Chinese Science Academy, The Royal Academy of Sciences, etc are all in on it is ridiculous. ALSO CLEAR, is that a lot of businessmen and their chummy politico pals (of ALL stripes) will be making a shitload of money off of it. The one does not cancel out the other. ISIS is real, and businessmen and their chummy political lapdogs are making a fuckton of money off of it.
He doesn't seem to disagree with global warming at all, and he CERTAINLY doesn't disagree with human causation.
His questions are whether the changes are going to be for the better or for the worse.
Do FAST, Yoga, etc., agree with him that humans have indisputably caused climate change?
I also can see that the interview has been selectively edited. There's a segment around 8:50 where the interviewer asks a question (a leading one,a ludicrous one -- "CO2 has gone up 40% but temperature hasn't") and then there's a cut and Dyson is clearly answering a DIFFERENT question--one about people's motives, rather than anything about the relationship between CO2 and temperature.
His questions are whether the changes are going to be for the better or for the worse.
Do FAST, Yoga, etc., agree with him that humans have indisputably caused climate change?
I also can see that the interview has been selectively edited. There's a segment around 8:50 where the interviewer asks a question (a leading one,a ludicrous one -- "CO2 has gone up 40% but temperature hasn't") and then there's a cut and Dyson is clearly answering a DIFFERENT question--one about people's motives, rather than anything about the relationship between CO2 and temperature.
CBC noted this, in an article on the amount of heat the oceans have absorbed through climate change.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ocean-heat-1.3408706
My fear is that your "solutions" will do severe harm to the poorest and most vulnerable people. Economic development over the past 30 years has lifted more people out of absolute poverty than in any time in human history. I simply don't want to see this going the other direction.
Since you seem to "know" what is going on - please tell me exactly what percentage of the climate change is due to human activity? 100%? 50%? 1%? 0.05%?
Two reasons to be skeptical - Groupthink and the Pretense of Knowledge
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/1...e-change-no-group-think-about-climate-change/
http://www.economist.com/news/speci...change-go-hand-hand-their-politics-groupthink
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/12/hayeks-warning-the-social-engineers-pretense-of-knowledge/
The Wider Social Danger from the Pretense of Knowledge
The wider lesson, Hayek also highlighted, was that this false approach of the social engineers and government policy-makers threatened not only the continuing instabilities of inflations and recessions, but the very sustainability of a functioning and prospering free society.
Thus, Hayek concluded his Nobel lecture with this warning:
“If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails [such as in the modern market economy], he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible . . .
“The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society — a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”
Forty years after Friedrich A. Hayek spoke these words and twenty-two years since his death in 1992, society continues to be plagued with those suffering from this pretense of knowledge.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/25/pretense-of-knowledge/
Pretense of knowledge
I confess that I prefer true but imperfect knowledge, even if it leaves much indetermined and unpredictable, to a pretence of exact knowledge that is likely to be false. – Friedrich von Hayek
While discussing my recent interview with Russ Roberts, Russ referred me to von Hayek‘s Nobel Prize Lecture in 1974 [link]. While focused on economics, von Hayek provides many insights that are relevant to climate science. Excerpts:
Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable.
We know: of course, with regard to the market and similar social structures, a great many facts which we cannot measure and on which indeed we have only some very imprecise and general information. And because the effects of these facts in any particular instance cannot be confirmed by quantitative evidence, they are simply disregarded by those sworn to admit only what they regard as scientific evidence: they thereupon happily proceed on the fiction that the factors which they can measure are the only ones that are relevant.
JC comment: Refer to Fig 8.14 in the AR5. The only forcing known with very high confidence is greenhouse gases, which has had very high confidence level since the SAR. Prior to the AR5, only GHG and ozone were known with high confidence (confidence has increased in AR5 for nearly all of the forcings.) External forcing is relatively easy to measure, compared with 3-D ocean circulation patterns and the vertical transfer of ocean heat. Interesting that the only relevant quantity known to very high confidence is judged to the dominant influence on 20th/21st century climate.
The correlation between aggregate demand and total employment, for instance, may only be approximate, but as it is the only one on which we have quantitative data, it is accepted as the only causal connection that counts. On this standard there may thus well exist better “scientific” evidence for a false theory, which will be accepted because it is more “scientific”, than for a valid explanation, which is rejected because there is no sufficient quantitative evidence for it.
JC comment: This is the argument for rejecting (or at least ignoring) various natural variability arguments.
The reason for this state of affairs is the fact, to which I have already briefly referred, that the social sciences, like much of biology but unlike most fields of the physical sciences, have to deal with structures of essential complexity, i.e. with structures whose characteristic properties can be exhibited only by models made up of relatively large numbers of variables.
JC comment: By these arguments, climate dynamics has more in common with with systems biology and economics than it does with experimental physics.
In some fields, particularly where problems of a similar kind arise in the physical sciences, the difficulties can be overcome by using, instead of specific information about the individual elements, data about the relative frequency, or the probability, of the occurrence of the various distinctive properties of the elements. But this is true only where we have to deal with “phenomena of unorganized complexity,” in contrast to those “phenomena of organized complexity” with which we have to deal in the social sciences. Organized complexity here means that the character of the structures showing it depends not only on the properties of the individual elements of which they are composed, and the relative frequency with which they occur, but also on the manner in which the individual elements are connected with each other. In the explanation of the working of such structures we can for this reason not replace the information about the individual elements by statistical information, but require full information about each element if from our theory we are to derive specific predictions about individual events. Without such specific information about the individual elements we shall be confined to what on another occasion I have called mere pattern predictions – predictions of some of the general attributes of the structures that will form themselves, but not containing specific statements about the individual elements of which the structures will be made up.
JC comment: I like the framework of organized complexity, and would like to see it applied more to the problem of climate change. The stadium wave idea arguably falls in this category.
The conflict between what in its present mood the public expects science to achieve in satisfaction of popular hopes and what is really in its power is a serious matter because, even if the true scientists should all recognize the limitations of what they can do in the field of human affairs, so long as the public expects more there will always be some who will pretend, and perhaps honestly believe, that they can do more to meet popular demands than is really in their power. It is often difficult enough for the expert, and certainly in many instances impossible for the layman, to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate claims advanced in the name of science.
JC comments: This seems an apt description of the IPCC’s efforts to provide information to the UNFCCC.
There are some special problems, however, in connection with those essentially complex phenomena of which social structures are so important an instance, which make me wish to restate in conclusion in more general terms the reasons why in these fields not only are there only absolute obstacles to the prediction of specific events, but why to act as if we possessed scientific knowledge enabling us to transcend them may itself become a serious obstacle to the advance of the human intellect.
JC comment: Along these lines, the IPCC framing and consenus on the climate change problem is arguably an obstacle to making progress in understanding the dynamics of the climate system (see IPCC diagnosis-paradigm paralysis).
The chief point we must remember is that the great and rapid advance of the physical sciences took place in fields where it proved that explanation and prediction could be based on laws which accounted for the observed phenomena as functions of comparatively few variables – either particular facts or relative frequencies of events. This may even be the ultimate reason why we single out these realms as “physical” in contrast to those more highly organized structures which I have here called essentially complex phenomena. There is no reason why the position must be the same in the latter as in the former fields. The difficulties which we encounter in the latter are not, as one might at first suspect, difficulties about formulating theories for the explanation of the observed events – although they cause also special difficulties about testing proposed explanations and therefore about eliminating bad theories. They are due to the chief problem which arises when we apply our theories to any particular situation in the real world. A theory of essentially complex phenomena must refer to a large number of particular facts; and to derive a prediction from it, or to test it, we have to ascertain all these particular facts. Once we succeeded in this there should be no particular difficulty about deriving testable predictions – with the help of modern computers it should be easy enough to insert these data into the appropriate blanks of the theoretical formulae and to derive a prediction. The real difficulty, to the solution of which science has little to contribute, and which is sometimes indeed insoluble, consists in the ascertainment of the particular facts.
This corresponds to what I have called earlier the mere pattern predictions to which we are increasingly confined as we penetrate from the realm in which relatively simple laws prevail into the range of phenomena where organized complexity rules. As we advance we find more and more frequently that we can in fact ascertain only some but not all the particular circumstances which determine the outcome of a given process; and in consequence we are able to predict only some but not all the properties of the result we have to expect. Often all that we shall be able to predict will be some abstract characteristic of the pattern that will appear – relations between kinds of elements about which individually we know very little. Yet, as I am anxious to repeat, we will still achieve predictions which can be falsified and which therefore are of empirical significance.
To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm. In the physical sciences there may be little objection to trying to do the impossible; one might even feel that one ought not to discourage the over-confident because their experiments may after all produce some new insights. But in the social field the erroneous belief that the exercise of some power would have beneficial consequences is likely to lead to a new power to coerce other men being conferred on some authority. Even if such power is not in itself bad, its exercise is likely to impede the functioning of those spontaneous ordering forces by which, without understanding them, man is in fact so largely assisted in the pursuit of his aims.
If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants. There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.
JC comment: I find the above bolded text to be a good prescription for climate science and policy.
I wonder how climate change deniers will explain this one.
The Indian Monsoon season has changed, the rainy season is becoming shorter and unpredictable. More significantly the stream of the rains has shifted. When India gained it's independence the rains formed south of the Arabian Gulf dumping its payload along the west coast, Gujarat would see the heaviest rains. Now Gujarat is becoming drier, India breadbasket is producing less produce. Currently the Monsoons have shifted in the direction of the Bay of Bengal, West Indian cities are flooding regularly and the water table of the Ganges - Brahmaputra Delta is rising rapidly.
Do we bring 157 million Bangladeshis to Canada?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/19/opinions/potarazu-chennai-flooding/
The Indian Monsoon season has changed, the rainy season is becoming shorter and unpredictable. More significantly the stream of the rains has shifted. When India gained it's independence the rains formed south of the Arabian Gulf dumping its payload along the west coast, Gujarat would see the heaviest rains. Now Gujarat is becoming drier, India breadbasket is producing less produce. Currently the Monsoons have shifted in the direction of the Bay of Bengal, West Indian cities are flooding regularly and the water table of the Ganges - Brahmaputra Delta is rising rapidly.
Do we bring 157 million Bangladeshis to Canada?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/19/opinions/potarazu-chennai-flooding/
India has displaced the PRC as the country with the worst air pollution, too reliant on coal. Add to that its primitive plumbing in it's major cities and you have a recipe for catastrophe. And we all know the effects of methane on the ionosphere.
The 'solutions' are vastly cheaper then the costs of losses already. Google insurance industry estimates of the cost of climate change now. Then take a look at the loss of crops associated with extreme weather events.
Those two issues are already vastly more expensive, and already hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest.
And Judith Curry? She resigned from the APS, that's a telling statement. You can find the occasional wingnut and quite a few oil funded lobbysist types, but there are pretty much zero respected scientists who have done legit work who think Curry and the deniers have anything legit to argue about the science.
Do you really think NASA, AAAS, APS, IPCC and pretty much all the other legit scientific organizations are involved in some kind of 'eco-religion' as you call it?
Do you think they are making up reports of the globe heating up, glaciers melting and extreme weather events?
It is telling that you refuse to answer the question.
Also telling that you keep spouting nonsense about me denying climate change.
Let's try again.
Since you seem to "know" what is going on - please tell me exactly what percentage of the climate change is due to human activity? 100%? 50%? 1%? 0.05%?
Please provide some evidence on the nature and cost of your proposed "solutions" and exactly what effect they will have on climate change?
"pretty much zero respected scientists" - you mean like Freeman Dyson? - To say that Freeman Dyson is a highly respected scientist is an huge understatement.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
Judith Curry
"Some additional minor insights on the process. The APS has a Topical Group on the Physics of Climate, of which I am a Member and have been elected to the Executive Committee. The Topical Group was not invited to participate in this in any way, other than to suggest individuals to participate in the Workshop. So the population of APS physicists who actually know something about the physics of climate were not invited to participate in this process (other than myself and maybe one or two other Workshop participants who were actually APS members). Another note: of the 6 experts invited to the APS Workshop, I think only 2 of us are APS members; i.e. apparently there is not sufficient expertise within the APS to summon 6 APS member experts.
Well, it will be interesting to see how the APS membership responds. Lets see how this plays out, I will decide whether I renew my APS membership. The Topical Group on the Physics of Climate is developing into something worthwhile, but the POPA obviously doesn’t want any ‘interference’ with its policy agenda.
JC message to APS POPA: no one cares about your political preferences in the climate change debate. You have demonstrated that you bring nothing intellectually to the table (once Koonin and Rosner left). You simply have no business issuing a policy statement on climate change. You have embarrassed the APS membership."
Do I really think NASA, AAAS, APS, IPCC and pretty much all the other legit scientific organizations are involved in some kind of 'eco-religion' as you call it?
I believe that human beings respond to incentives. Follow the money - what percentage of grants, money and tenured positions go to the alarmists rather than skeptics? Aligning yourself, your program, your agency with the political imperatives du jour is a key to ‘success’.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ing-denier-research/#2715e4857a0b63a00fb948e9
http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-25/guest-post-climate-fanatics-run-public-relations-snag
What's with the fixation on an exact number?
Are you going to claim that if you can't give an exact number then it can't be true?
Anyways, why don't you read the reports and check for yourself.
Tell us what the IPCC says, if they give us an exact number or a range with a percentage of certainty.
And then tell us why you therefore don't think that science knows what is going on.
Should be entertaining.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Global Warming is caused more by the meat and dairy industry. research article listed below.
according to the research, 13% of global warming is caused by transportation vs 51% by dairy and meat industry.
These are carbon foot prints, i.e. green house gas emissions.
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf
according to the research, 13% of global warming is caused by transportation vs 51% by dairy and meat industry.
These are carbon foot prints, i.e. green house gas emissions.
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf
You don't get it and it seems like you never will. Read up on confirmation bias.
When you make an argument - it is up to you to provide the proof and evidence to support it. You clearly did not read or did not understand the articles about the pretense of knowledge.
I don't think anyone can provide an accurate number because we don't have the data or knowledge to support it. There are simply too many variables and too much complexity.
What difference does it make? If humans are responsible for 1% of the climate change - how effective are all your "solutions" going to be - and at what cost? Who will they benefit most - the political class and their friends?
FYI - the probability of the world coming to an end any time soon is infinitesimally small
climate change environmental disaster? who knows - not likely in our lifetimes and there may be little we can do about it anyway aside from colonizing other planets.
