Climate continues to change.

[trysail]

The Six Most Important Reasons I'm A Climate Sceptic — And Why You Should Be Sceptical Too
by Justin Haskins

...1. Climate alarmists’ temperature-predicting track record is abysmal...
2. Climate alarmists’ predictions about extreme weather and other crises have also failed...
3. There are many unexplainable problems with the theory rising carbon-dioxide levels have caused global temperature to increase...
4. It’s not clear the most widely used climate data are accurate...
5. Even if humans are creating a slightly warmer climate, it’s not necessarily a bad thing...
6. There’s no reason to believe humans won’t develop cheap energy alternatives during the next century...


details, sources and much, much more...
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...-skeptic-and-why-you-should-be-a-skeptic-too/

​

​

 

[richard_daily]

The Six Most Important Reasons I'm A Climate Sceptic — And Why You Should Be Sceptical Too
by Justin Haskins

...1. Climate alarmists’ temperature-predicting track record is abysmal...
2. Climate alarmists’ predictions about extreme weather and other crises have also failed...
3. There are many unexplainable problems with the theory rising carbon-dioxide levels have caused global temperature to increase...
4. It’s not clear the most widely used climate data are accurate...
5. Even if humans are creating a slightly warmer climate, it’s not necessarily a bad thing...
6. There’s no reason to believe humans won’t develop cheap energy alternatives during the next century...


details, sources and much, much more...
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...-skeptic-and-why-you-should-be-a-skeptic-too/

​

​

Those are some of the stupidest arguments against climate change I've ever heard...

Who's going to use the cheap energy sources if their family homes are underwater due to coastal flooding?

Who's going ot pay for climate migration?

Hint: it won't be you, since you'll be dead soon.

It's nice that you want to give a middle finger to future generations for...

For what exactly? What do you get out of it? Are you employed by oil and gas?

That's really the only logical conclusion. That your personal benefit trumps the welfare of the other billions of people in the world.

 

[SlutAddicted]

The modelling of climate change is extremely complex.

Although rigorous science is involved we are not dealing with absolute certainties. It is more a matter of very well informed people looking at the whole gamut of possibilities and based upon all the available data drawing informed conclusions. That involves making judgements on a whole range of inputs and how those inputs correlate with a given set of results.

Nobody including the climate scientists are claiming absolute certainty or specificity. It is the general populace and mass media that need everything boiled down to a very simple message. The models don't actually output a single temperature forecast. They show a range of possibilities with associated probabilities.

Think of it this way. Imagine the full range of analysis shows that there is a 30% chance that we are doomed to catastrophic consequences, a 30% chance that we have a big problem that we can solve with immediate action, a 30% chance that we have a big problem that we can solve if we tackle it in the next two decades, a 5% chance that we have more room to solve and a 5% chance that there is no problem. Only an idiot points to the last 5% and says says well until you can say for sure I ain't doing nothing.

If your drunk uncle drives away from your house too plastered to see there is some probability that he will get home safe without killing anybody or damaging anything. That doesn't mean everything is ok.

 

[richard_daily]

The modelling of climate change is extremely complex.

Although rigorous science is involved we are not dealing with absolute certainties. It is more a matter of very well informed people looking at the whole gamut of possibilities and based upon all the available data drawing informed conclusions. That involves making judgements on a whole range of inputs and how those inputs correlate with a given set of results.

Nobody including the climate scientists are claiming absolute certainty or specificity. It is the general populace and mass media that need everything boiled down to a very simple message. The models don't actually output a single temperature forecast. They show a range of possibilities with associated probabilities.

Think of it this way. Imagine the full range of analysis shows that there is a 30% chance that we are doomed to catastrophic consequences, a 30% chance that we have a big problem that we can solve with immediate action, a 30% chance that we have a big problem that we can solve if we tackle it in the next two decades, a 5% chance that we have more room to solve and a 5% chance that there is no problem. Only an idiot points to the last 5% and says says well until you can say for sure I ain't doing nothing.

If your drunk uncle drives away from your house too plastered to see there is some probability that he will get home safe without killing anybody or damaging anything. That doesn't mean everything is ok.

What is the benefit of not acting?

What is the benefit of taking steps to stop climate change from occurring?

A simple cost/benefit even from a purely economic standpoint shows that there is far more benefit to taking action, than not.

 

[SlutAddicted]

What is the benefit of not acting?

What is the benefit of taking steps to stop climate change from occurring?

A simple cost/benefit even from a purely economic standpoint shows that there is far more benefit to taking action, than not.

Exactly. A balanced assessment indicates a real problem and need to act. The presence of complexity and areas of uncertainty don't diminish that imperative when the evidence indicates that the problem is real and consequences are huge.

The fact that science doesn't have every last answer and may get some things wrong doesn't change the whole picture. They aren't claiming to know everything - just enough to make a reasoned judgment.

Now what action to take is a very complicated question. In many cases simplistic and idealistic solutions that involve no compromises whatsoever are part of the problem as is over simplification of just how we get 7 billion people all pulling in the same direction. Here is a really oversimplified example. We are a very long way from replacing carbon emitting sources with perfectly green wind and solar. But nuclear technology has the capacity right now and some carbon based sources are far cleaner than what is being used now. Should we embrace those better but imperfect sources or hold out for the ideal? I don't have the answer but I do know that being shouted down for even asking the question makes me worry about whether we are taking effective action.

If the problem is as big as we think it might be just doing something, anything isn't good enough. We need to be serious and make hard choices that may not always align with idealism.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

On the whole I agree with SlutAddicted. The potential ramifications of anthropogenic climate change are too severe to pursue a myopic response. But at the same time, I wouldn't want to undervalue especially solar energy. Solar efficiency, cost of production, and solar energy storage has made great strides in the past decade. So much so that in the state of Minnesota, solar plus storage is competitive against even natural gas. In general, the strategy I favor for transitioning energy systems involves funneling dollars into research and economies of scale to drive down the price of "green" alternatives. Now is the time to invest in research for battery tech like lithium air, compact nuclear, and fusion. It we really wanted to, based on trends in efficiency gains in fusion, there's a good chance of adding fusion plants to the grid in 15 - 20 years. But not pursuing a myopic response also means looking at geoengineering. We should be ready with geoengineering solutions in the back pocket, should it come to that.

 

[thør]

Plausible

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

Solar is now the most popular form of new electricity generation worldwide.

 

[thør]

Of course, it was climate change that really killed the whale.

 

[trysail]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2017_v6-550x317.jpg

http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif


​

 

[trysail]

So, you think the historic global temperature records are reliable?

Here's how the temperature records for the ocean (remember, that's 70% of the earth's surface) were compiled.



ERI= Engine room intake
Bucket= (literally) throwing a canvas bucket overboard (I swear to god, I'm not making this up)

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/figure-2.png
Source: Hadley Centre, Climate Research Unit
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf


They haven't got a frickin' clue whether global temperatures are warmer or not.



​

 

[water505]

As another leftist lie falls apart the lemmings are getting more angry with each passing day. It's finally sinking in. They've been had. Again.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

They haven't got a frickin' clue whether global temperatures are warmer or not.

​

Go fuck yourself!

 

[Hypoxia]

Breitbart sez: blah blah blah
InfoWars sez: blah blah blah
FauxNewz sez: blah blah blah
Trompanzy sez: blah blah blah
Trysail sez: blah blah blah blah

"The researches of many commentators have already thrown much darkness on this subject, and it is probable that, if they continue, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
--M.Twain

 

[trysail]

...The precautionary principle is equivalent to Star Trek techno-babble. It sounds logical, but is actually meaningless It’s main purpose is to deflect proper discussion.

Since you can never prove that any action that has an actual effect is safe and doesn’t have unfortunate unintended consequences, a strong form of the precautionary principle would mean you should never do anything. But doing nothing isn’t safe either. Hence, the precautionary principle is useless for decision making...

-DeWitt Payne
​

...The Precautionary Principle in the absence of quantified risks is equivalent to Pascal’s Wager. It means that the decision is determined entirely by the scariness of the hypotheses being offered rather than the strength of the evidence. Usually a false dilemma is being offered – two scenarios, one scary, one not, when there are many more scenarios possible (and more likely). A better approach to uncertain risks is to develop more flexible resources ready to jump the right way when more information becomes available. Be an adaptable generalist. Creating economic prosperity for the poor would therefore seem to be the priority, as it is applicable to many different problems and scenarios, rather than only one.

The analogy is fairly straightforward. The Precautionary Principle as commonly applied to climate change says that even if you’re not fully convinced that it will definitely happen, if you accept that it might happen, the costs are so high (e.g. Ted Turner’s cannibal scenario) that it’s still the only rational choice to act to prevent it. Pascal’s Wager applied to the Christian afterlife mythology says that even if you’re not fully convinced that it will definitely happen, the costs (eternal torment versus eternal bliss) are so high that the only rational choice is to believe. The distinctive features of the argument are that it offers only two alternatives with the putative costs embedded the hypothesis, and the conclusion arises from the hypothesised costs alone, not the evidence...



http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/28/uncertainty-risk-and-inaction/

​

 

[trysail]

Turning Uncertainty into Certainty – Reinventing the Precautionary Principle
by Ben Pile

...the application of the precautionary principle passes weak theoretical risk off as certainty; it turns possibility into story lines, about which ‘something must be done’...


http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/06/reinventing-precaution.html

.....


​

 

[trysail]

...It ( cancer ) is, of course, a false analogy but insidiously seductive because of the invocation, manipulation and influence of emotion. When their back is to the wall, desperate polemicists invoke the spectre of catastrophe notwithstanding a total inability to identify a probability. Carrying this to a reductio ad absurdum, no one should ever get on a airplane because of the possibility that the airplane might crash. No one should ever drive an automobile because of the possibility of an accident. Even these examples do not fully convey the absurdity of CAGW analogies of doom because the current state of climatology does not allow even a SWAG estimate of either catastrophic outcomes or the probabilities thereof.

" ...Wrong information is usually worse than no information. If you have no information about the stock market, you may not bet. If you have wrong information about the stock market, you’ll lose a bundle. If you don’t know if a snake shaking its rattle is poisonous, you’ll back off. If you have wrong information about snakes, you’ll get bit... "

.....
​

 

[trysail]

...California’s gasoline and electricity prices are the highest in the western United States. We had the highest gasoline taxes at around 54 cents a gallon, and they’re about to go up again in November between 12 cents and 19 cents per gallon, depending on the type of fuel. Cap-and-trade mandates will likely add another 63 cents a gallon by 2021, according to Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor. Low-income Californians will be hardest hit. The state’s answer seems to be, “Let them eat solar.”...​

-Ben Boychuk
Sacramento Bee​

​

 

[Disgustipated]

...California’s gasoline and electricity prices are the highest in the western United States. We had the highest gasoline taxes at around 54 cents a gallon, and they’re about to go up again in November between 12 cents and 19 cents per gallon, depending on the type of fuel. Cap-and-trade mandates will likely add another 63 cents a gallon by 2021, according to Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor. Low-income Californians will be hardest hit. The state’s answer seems to be, “Let them eat solar.”...​

-Ben Boychuk
Sacramento Bee​

​

No shit? I mean, really? Is that how it works when prices rise and lower income families can't afford the higher prices? They get hit hard? Who knew!

 

[BotanyBoy]

No shit? I mean, really? Is that how it works when prices rise and lower income families can't afford the higher prices? They get hit hard? Who knew!

I say fuck em if they can't afford it GTFO and move to fuckin' Texas.

 

[Bookishleigh]

No shit? I mean, really? Is that how it works when prices rise and lower income families can't afford the higher prices? They get hit hard? Who knew!

Well, after the big win with healthcare, Republicans are going to take on tax reform. All those tax cuts for the rich will trickle down....you know, like it did in Kansas.

 

[Disgustipated]

I say fuck em if they can't afford it GTFO and move to fuckin' Texas.

Because poor people are totally able to afford to uproot their entire family to move halfway across America.

Well, after the big win with healthcare, Republicans are going to take on tax reform. All those tax cuts for the rich will trickle down....you know, like it did in Kansas.

I blame Bush.

 

[SlutAddicted]

On the whole I agree with SlutAddicted. The potential ramifications of anthropogenic climate change are too severe to pursue a myopic response. But at the same time, I wouldn't want to undervalue especially solar energy. Solar efficiency, cost of production, and solar energy storage has made great strides in the past decade. So much so that in the state of Minnesota, solar plus storage is competitive against even natural gas. In general, the strategy I favor for transitioning energy systems involves funneling dollars into research and economies of scale to drive down the price of "green" alternatives. Now is the time to invest in research for battery tech like lithium air, compact nuclear, and fusion. It we really wanted to, based on trends in efficiency gains in fusion, there's a good chance of adding fusion plants to the grid in 15 - 20 years. But not pursuing a myopic response also means looking at geoengineering. We should be ready with geoengineering solutions in the back pocket, should it come to that.

I agree that a number of green or greener technologies have made big strides. The key as with any rational analysis is to take into account all relevant factors, see the whole picture and make a balanced judgment. A great deal of what we read and hear is selective or anecdotal information - there is more than enough of both to support any pre-conceived bias.

The absence of certainty is not the same as there being "nothing more than weak theoretical risk" or "a total inability to identify a probability". That is all faux intellectualism available to anyone with Google.

At the same time prevalence of solar among new energy sources in a single year proves almost nothing. All new energy is distorted by subsidies and represents a tiny proportion of total production.

 

[trysail]

Wow !

Very powerful stuff.

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. "On The Death Of Skepticism: Concerning Climate Hysteria
Lindzen is Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

"...While the politicized climate issue dates back to the 60’s, things really took off after the Clinton-Gore administration assumed power and funding for climate increased by about a factor of 15. This was far more than a small backwater and very difficult field could absorb, and led to a vast increase in the number of scientists who claimed their work was related to climate in order to cash in on the windfall. Moreover, the institutional structure for support of alarm was already in place with the United Nations creation of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) – both exclusively concerned with only human impacts on climate. Added to this were the wild enthusiasm of the well-funded green advocacy movement, and the motherhood nature of environmentalism.

It is, therefore, informative to look at who the skeptics (not of climate change, but of climate catastrophism and the need for specific action) were when this explosion of support began. Here is a very brief set of examples..."


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08...th-of-skepticism-concerning-climate-hysteria/

​

​

 

[water505]

Al Gore couldn't make a movie about it if it weren't the truth.