0
winsor

Pier Review

Recommended Posts

This is pretty much why I take Climate Change orthodoxy with a grain of salt. I have seen World Class Experts who could argue equally strongly for either a thesis or its antithesis using the same data, depending on what preconceived notion they wanted to support.

When you have 'creationists' plying their trade, it is easy to dismiss their nonsense out of hand. 'Social Scientists,' OTOH, are given more credence than is their due on far too many subjects, supporting the perception of the field as trivial.

For the record, humanity has an impact upon the environment. Having said that, anyone who focuses on 'Climate Change' (tm) above all other human concerns is certifiably delusional.

Invoking 'Science!' (per Thomas Dolby) as justification for doing so borders on argumentum ad verecundiam, and is effectively bullshit in the grand scheme of things.

Science is born of skepticism. Belief is anathema to scientific method, and conclusions based on belief are generally worthy of dismissal.


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


This is pretty much why I take Climate Change orthodoxy with a grain of salt



I read that article today. Spot on, IMO! Way beyond confirmation bias.

Quote


'Social Scientists,' OTOH, are given more credence than is their due on far too many subjects, supporting the perception of the field as trivial.



I've recently read several articles on the abuse of P-values (statistics) by "social scientists". Need to track them down and post them here. Massive abuse.
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
winsor

This is pretty much why I take Climate Change orthodoxy with a grain of salt. I have seen World Class Experts who could argue equally strongly for either a thesis or its antithesis using the same data, depending on what preconceived notion they wanted to support.

When you have 'creationists' plying their trade, it is easy to dismiss their nonsense out of hand. 'Social Scientists,' OTOH, are given more credence than is their due on far too many subjects, supporting the perception of the field as trivial.

For the record, humanity has an impact upon the environment. Having said that, anyone who focuses on 'Climate Change' (tm) above all other human concerns is certifiably delusional.

Invoking 'Science!' (per Thomas Dolby) as justification for doing so borders on argumentum ad verecundiam, and is effectively bullshit in the grand scheme of things.

Science is born of skepticism. Belief is anathema to scientific method, and conclusions based on belief are generally worthy of dismissal.


BSBD,

Winsor



Sadly, there is so much wrong with that article that its fundamental conclusion is eclipsed by all the BS. The basic conclusion - Keep Politics and science separate - no disagreement here. Unfortunately the author makes his biases known very early with a few statements that are plain wrong. As demonstrated by the poster above me however, its a great article to provide confirmation bias for those who need it.

Fortunately most climate scientists and scientists in general, particularly those outside the US, couldn't care less about the politics.
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

Only the ones who depend on government grants for their research aka livelihood.



What about the ones who rely on corporate funds? Pure as the driven snow, I assume.



That is just good old capitalism. If we take the government out of research, only the best research will happen. Many people have said so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Either way, "follow the money..."

Indeed.

America fossil fuel profits, 2014: $257 billion
US subsidies for fossil fuels, 2014: $37.5 billion

US spending on climate change in 2014, all expenditures: $22.5 billion

Follow the money.



You forgot to include climate change profits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>You forgot to include climate change profits

There are no "climate change profits" on climate change research (which is what that $22.5 billion represents.)

There are profits by companies that build solar/wind equipment; you could claim they are supported by climate change research. Total REVENUE from US solar companies last year was $23 billion; wind was $6 billion. If we assume they are doing astoundingly well (i.e. high profits) that's about $7 billion in profits.

Now let's look at companies like Halliburton, which are supported by oil companies.

Follow the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>You forgot to include climate change profits

There are no "climate change profits" on climate change research (which is what that $22.5 billion represents.)



Are you telling me we have spent $22.5 BILLION dollars on climate change and we nothing to show for it? Follow the money indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Are you telling me we have spent $22.5 BILLION dollars on climate change and
>we nothing to show for it?

Why do you think we have nothing to show for it? We now understand climate change to a high degree, and we know what's driving the changes.

If you want to find out who has more incentive to deceive, find out who is making the most money from climate change (or climate change denial.) Then follow the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Are you telling me we have spent $22.5 BILLION dollars on climate change and
>we nothing to show for it?

Why do you think we have nothing to show for it? We now understand climate change to a high degree, and we know what's driving the changes.

If you want to find out who has more incentive to deceive, find out who is making the most money from climate change (or climate change denial.) Then follow the money.



Everybody knows it is a hoax made up by the Chinese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The earth's atmosphere has been warming since the start of the Holocene, roughly 12,000 years ago. Some climatologists see the Holocene as an unusually warm and unusually long inter-glacial period, while others see it as human-caused.
Experts are still debating what caused the Holocene to last so long.

Have you read any of (retired engineer) Burt Rutan's climate-change analysis?
I am still wading through Burt's videos on YouTube.

The silliest thing is carbon-offsets and carbon-taxes. If they are not directly related to investments in non-polluting energy sources (e.g. wind or solar) I call them another "money-grab" by governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The earth's atmosphere has been warming since the start of the Holocene, roughly 12,000 years ago. Some climatologists see the Holocene as an unusually warm and unusually long inter-glacial period, while others see it as human-caused. ?


You're conflating two things. One is the Holocene, the other is the onset of CO2-driven warming. Their signatures are very different. The Holocene saw temperature rises of about 1 degree C every 1000 years; we are seeing warming of 1 degree C every 150 years, about 8 times faster.
Quote

If they are not directly related to investments in non-polluting energy sources (e.g. wind or solar) I call them another "money-grab" by governments.


They are related. They are a market-based method of driving investment in wind and solar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
f
billvon

>Are you telling me we have spent $22.5 BILLION dollars on climate change and
>we nothing to show for it?

Why do you think we have nothing to show for it? We now understand climate change to a high degree, and we know what's driving the changes.



And what does that get us? NOTHING! OTOH we could have invested that money on schools roads and bridges, making a real difference in people's lives and moving our country forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>And what does that get us? NOTHING!

What has scientific research into the climate and the atmosphere gotten us? NOTHING!

Well, it's gotten us better weather forecasting. And more tools to fight climate change. And better predictions for said climate change. But besides those things, what has it gotten us? NOTHING!

Well, and sea level rise predictions that urban planners can use. And ways to reduce AGW gases. And, in fact, an actual halt to increases in CO2. And a better understanding of ocean chemistry, leading to ways to preserve coral reefs and fish populations that we rely on. But beside those things, NOTHING!

And maybe some renewable sources of energy. And better pollution controls. And the subsequent cleaner air. But besides that, NOTHING

So other than weather forecasting, and those tools, and climate predictions, and sea level predictions, and AGW strategies, and understanding of the oceans and pollution, not a damn thing.

Now you can start on how useless the Romans were . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brenthutch

***>Are you telling me we have spent $22.5 BILLION dollars on climate change and
>we nothing to show for it?

Why do you think we have nothing to show for it? We now understand climate change to a high degree, and we know what's driving the changes.



And what does that get us? NOTHING! OTOH we could have invested that money on schools roads and bridges, making a real difference in people's lives and moving our country forward.

Stupidest argument ever. "Oh won't someone think of the children!":D

Yeah, you could have used that money on schools, roads and bridges... but you wouldn't have. You might have bought a few more F-22s, but doing something useful with it? Nah. Schools and infrastructure aren't underfunded because of the tiny investment in climate change and renewable energy - they're underfunded because the people who make the decisions don't think that properly funding them is important.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0