And to demonstrate your deep understanding of it, you should give a one paragraph summary of it, in your own words. Just plopping it down and shouting "This is obviously right, and I refuse to discuss it any further than that!" adds nothing to the discussion. Curry's previous piece that claimed climate was chaotic was ... what's the word ... wrong. Chaotic, in that sense, means the output can change greatly in response to very small changes in the inputs. Weather is chaotic. Climate isn't. You can vary the starting conditions on the models -- which the modelers will do over many runs -- and the outputs change little. Not chaotic. Shocking, how poor Curry's grasp of chaos-as-related-to-climate was. She's really not very good at the science. Her whole schtick now is just "Well, the uncertainty is just too great, so we shouldn't do anything." In addition to being bad science, it's also bad logic.
She holds a doctorate degree and you have what? She taught this. What do you teach? Has it occured to you that you mean something different than her as to chaotic?
She's still wrong, and I explained why. And given you ignore the credentials of the vast numbers of scientists who disagree with her, your appeal to authority fallacy looks hypocritical as well as illogical. Then you should tell us what that meaning is, and we can discuss it. Oh wait. You don't discuss. You only declare how St. Judith's edicts are not to be questioned by mere mortals.
To debate This is a debate forum and main purpose is not blind regurgitation but debate. The act of debate itself, when conducted correctly, becomes an intense learning tool for both sides of the argument. Because I research answers and questions as well I am as familiar with the denial side of the climate change debate as I am with the scientific discussion points
Whereas i am here to spark thinking, to spark desire for knowledge and to spread the good word, you will not drown tomorrow nor fry during the day.
Then why do this on a debate forum? You would be better just cut and pasting to a blog - that way if anyone disagrees you can delete the posts
Let's look into the funding applied to studies. https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/10/voices-of-reason-in-the-climate-wars/#more-24179 The rule is, if you want the money honey, be certain to chide people who truly want just the facts. " Voices of reason in the ‘climate wars’ Posted on June 10, 2018 by curryja | 53 Comments by Judith Curry A recent and worthy attempt to redefine the ‘front’ in the ‘climate wars’, which could lead to a truce and possibly pave the way for rational progress. Matt Nisbet has published a provocative new paper: Strategic philanthropy in the post-Cap -and-Trade years: Reviewing U.S. climate and energy foundation funding A good article on this at western wire. Excerpts: The study analyzed $556.7 million in “behind-the-scenes” grants distributed by 19 major environmental foundations from 2011-2015 in the immediate aftermath of the failure to pass cap-and-trade legislation in 2010. Nisbet found that more than 80 percent of those funds were devoted to promoting renewable energy, communicating about and limiting climate change and opposing fossil fuels, while only two percent, or $10.5 million, was invested in technologies that would lower carbon emissions like carbon capture storage or nuclear energy. The donations themselves were also very concentrated; more than half of the money disbursed by the philanthropies was directed to 20 organizations in total. “One of the conclusions that I think is probably the most important from the Nisbet study is that there’s not a lot of support for intellectual diversity on the climate issue, which is a shame because what the world’s doing isn’t working,” Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado Center for Science & Technology Policy Research, told Western Wire. “So you’d think that there’d be at least some resources going into looking at new approaches, alternatives, even if they’re contingency plans.” But according to Nisbet’s research, that is not where the vast majority of environmental grants are being applied. Funding for non-profit journalism, communications plans, and political campaigns dwarfs that of developing new technologies for carbon abatement. And yet, despite more than $150 million being invested in messaging, polls show that the push has failed to register climate change as a top-tier policy concern for Americans. “If we’re worried about the accumulating amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then for all the politics, for all the noise, for all the heat, it is ultimately a technology problem,” said Pielke..” The key in doing so will be to shift the characterization of climate change from that of a political football to a question of innovation, according to Pielke. One of the major reasons for the stagnation in climate progress can be attributed to the extreme polarization of the issue over the past few decades. Nisbet notes in his study that environmental causes began partnering with other grassroots organizations seeking “social justice-oriented solutions to climate change” and employed an “intersectional” strategy which connected the issue to other causes more aligned with the liberal ideology in order to build a larger movement. Nisbet says this strategy “likely contributed to deepening political polarization, serving as potent symbols for Republican donors and activists to rally around.” In an absence of legislative action and failure to cultivate broad, bipartisan support for long term solutions, policy has been relegated to executive action, which can be reversed once another administration enters the White House. “The problem is, that the climate issue has for 20 years been owned, taken over, by some of the most far-left activists, who have the leading voices on the issue,” Pielke said. “The politics inside of the climate movement such as it is, tend to favor progressively getting more extreme… if Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger and me—aren’t considered acceptable company in the climate movement – they’re never going to get to [Republican Senator from Oklahoma Jim] Inhofe.” Ultimately, according to Pielke, there is an argument to be made on both sides of the spectrum that acting on climate change will be beneficial in the long term. Market forces can be powerful, as witnessed with the rapid adoption of shale gas once it was established as a cheaper, cleaner fuel source. “Until the community embraces the idea that we don’t know everything about how to solve this issue, politically, technologically, policy-wise, then there is really not a lot of motivation for engaging in that difficult process of building bridges, searching for policies that might work,” Pielke said. Cue the twitter attacks on Nisbet and Pielke Jr.(too numerous and boring to recount here). Ted Nordhaus of The Breakthrough Institute responded with this twitter thread: 1. Going to engage this against my better judgement. The issue at bottom is not about differing theories of change, it is about how we negotiate both the uncertainties associated with climate change and differing values about how we orient toward those uncertainties. 2. The effort to remove Roger from 538 was culmination of years of effort at CAP &elsewhere to delegitimize his work &ours. Strategy was to a) conflate the green climate agenda with climate science and b) reduce the debate to a zero sum conflict between climate advocates &deniers 3. As I wrote last year, if you questioned the green agenda, you were a “delayer” and if you questioned climate castastrophism you were a “denier.” https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/ted-nordhaus/demons-under-every-rock … 4. Roger’s particular sin was questioning claims that natural disaster trends could be attributed to AGW, which undermined longstanding efforts by advocates to raise the political salience of the issue, a strategy that dates to the mid-90’s use of TV weathermen to advocate Kyoto 5. There was never any particularly compelling evidence that strategy worked. As early as 2000, research by the Frameworks Institute suggested it was more likely to backfire. But it served a range of other discursive needs so climate advocates remain deeply committed to it. 6. For similar reasons, challenging green policy orthodoxy has been treated as more than a simple policy dispute. From very early on, advocates conflated climate science with green policy formula of international treaty + regulate emissions + soft energy 7. Questioning the agenda was treated as defacto climate denial. Any alternative framing of problem or solution had to be squashed, And while it hasn’t made the politics any easier, it achieved other goals, as Matt Nisbet’s report has demonstrated. 8. The constant ad hominem, guilt by association, and misrepresentation wears you down and changes you. Without naming names, some of us handled that better than others and that is the case across the political spectrum. Being demonized in these ways often radicalizes people. 9. And it has also radicalized the climate debate. Catastrophism on the Left and know-nothingism on Right beget one another. As @atrembath and I wrote in Foreign Affairs last year, the benefits of doing so accrue primarily to opponents of action. 10. Can we put the polarization genie back in the bottle, on climate or anything else? I really don’t know. But I do wonder how those advocating further radicalization of climate advocacy imagine any of this ends. 11. Making ever more radical demands might be a fine strategy were there someone to negotiate with. But by the reckoning of most prominent climate hawks, there isn’t. 12. Nor does it appear that a more inclusive climate coalition is likely to bring larger congressional majorities. Any Democrat-only climate strategy has to be predicated on not only winning but holding purple/red districts over multiple elections. 13. These are precisely the districts that radicalized climate rhetoric alienates culturally and the green policy agenda punishes economically. Since the failure of cap and trade in 2010, climate activists have taken rhetoric to 11, and what it got them was Trump. 14. I don’t imagine I am going to convince many proponents of these strategies. But I do hope we might figure out how to have a more civil conversation about our differences. 15. In my view, that starts with how we talk about science. Is/Ought distinction matters. Climate scientists are also engaged citizens. And they bring important expert judgement that deserves consideration. But that is not the same thing as science, much less consensus science. 16. Climate activists, similarly, have every right to be alarmed about potential for catastrophic climate impacts. But that is not consensus science. There is no consensus science inconsistent with lukewarmist views. They are legitimate and should be engaged respectfully. 17. Finally, mitigation is hard not easy, and brings trade-offs for real people, not just the Koch brothers and other corporate demons. No one knows feasibility various sociotechnological pathways. More humility about solutions would serve climate mitigation efforts well. END JC reflections: Well, there are certainly some sane voices out there. One can only hope that the extremists on both sides would stop demonizing them an actually listen to them." Here is my deal I frankly do not believe our current fossil fuels are forever Exxon Mobile has come up with converting Algae to fuels. Electric cars have a place There is nothing wrong with walking in appropriate areas As I park my car, I feel sorry for the minions who use tiny autos and when crushed in an accident perish quickly. I know were they in my car they would have lived. I laud excellent fuel economy but understand the physics of fuels and know what it takes to get over 30 mpg. The ride of the tiny car is terrible unless a very unique suspension is on the car. Even then, the ride does not match cars made in our 1970's. Ford announced it will kill all but two passenger cars. Why force Ford down that path?
"Peter Lang | June 10, 2018 at 9:34 am | Reply and possibly pave the way for rational progress The only rational progress is to investigate whether or not global warming is actually harmful. If not, there is no rational justification for any climate polices that attempt to reduce global warming. The post has an underlying premise that global warming would be harmful or dangerous, and therefore we need to do something to reduce global warming. But what is the evidence to support that premise?" The above as shown is a quote from Curry Corner. https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/10/voices-of-reason-in-the-climate-wars/#more-24179
Add to the debate this way. Quote again from the supplied link " climategrog | June 10, 2018 at 3:12 pm | There’s no way back from where this stupidity has gone. Once things degenerate into hatred and zealotry it will take a generation for it to cool down again. You can not make a crusade out the destruction of life on earth and the absolute need to “save the planet” and then step back to ” well maybe it’s not quite that bad, can we work this out nicely. ” As some wise sole pointed out several years back: this will fade into obscurity rather than being solved or argued out logically. We long ago got tired of being bombarded 24/7 with the alarmist BS. Other, real, problems will demand everyone’s attention and the golden age of climatology funding will be over."
On the Ozone hole scare, I have not addressed it much and now see a smart person took this on. Again, the link is in previous posts. " popesclimatetheory | June 10, 2018 at 2:51 pm | Reply The truth will eventually win out, it always does. Unfortunately, that is not true, whoever wins a war rewrites the books to reflect their truth won, but it is not always really truth. Natural climate change will win, but the official books may not reflect the true reasons. If they win, they will write that their fixes saved us. Just like in the ozone hole scam. They said man-made freon 12 was destroying the ozone. They took advantage of natural advance and retreat of the ozone hole and took credit for fixing a problem that did not exist. The truth is still not accepted by the mainstream consensus. R12 was costing almost nothing because their patents had expired. They had to get it banned worldwide and get a patented product on the market. They are still quietly getting new patented products introduced to replace older, continually banned, products off the market as patents run out. Check out how much the newest product costs for home air conditioning units. The war against fossil fuel helps them hide these other scams and not many people even notice."
$550 million sounds like a lot doesn't it? That is until you find out this https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7 $900 million for denialism. And that was only the tip of the iceberg as many denialist funders went underground https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273
Great It was not YOU already the US citizens that were at risk from skin cancers It is clear record of a hole over the Antarctic that has since been closing The chemistry is clear The science is clear https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion There was and is no conspiracy
To add to the debate, let's show this mans comments taken from the Curry site and of course i posted the link earlier today in earlier posts. " Peter Lang | June 10, 2018 at 9:37 am | Reply Global warming may be beneficial In the following three comments I present three lines of evidence that, overall, global warming may be beneficial, not damaging and certainly not dangerous or catastrophic. They are: 1. Life thrived when Earth’s temperature was warmer, but struggled when colder; 2. Life thrived during rapid warmings in the past (much faster and greater magnitude than the warming over the past century), and struggled during rapid coolings; 3. The projected negative economic impact of global warming is much less than the estimated cost of the climate change industry. Furthermore, consistent with points 1 and 2, empirical evidence suggests the economic impact of global warming may be beneficial, not detrimental. In which case, the economic impact of policies to reduce global warming is the sum of the lost benefit of warming plus the cost of the climate change industry. These three comments expand on these. Peter Lang | June 10, 2018 at 9:38 am | Reply Life thrived when GMST was higher than now Earth’s surface temperature averaged about 7˚C warmer than now over the past 540 Ma. Source: Scotese (2016). ‘Some Thoughts on Global Climate Change: The Transition from Icehouse to Hothouse Conditions’ https://www.researchgate.net/public...ransition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions The fossil record shows life thrived through most of the warm periods – especially during the Mesozoic Era, when GMST averaged about 8˚C warmer than now, and the early Cainozoic Era. This suggests that around 7-8˚C warmer than now is the optimum temperature for life on Earth. On the other hand the evidence is clear that life struggles when colder than now. One line of evidence is that there is more carbon tied up in the biosphere, and less continental aridity, during warm times (IPCC AR4 WG1); e.g.: • “10% – 33% less terrestrial carbon storage at the LGM compared to today (300-1000 GtC less C in biosphere at GCM compared with preindustrial 3000 GtC)” https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4-1-4.html . That is, the mass of carbon in the biosphere has increased by a factor of 3 to 10 since the last glacial maximum. • “Lower continental aridity during the Mid-Pliocene” https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3-2.html
Well now that you no longer can get skin cancer, as were that true, who did you thank? The antarctic is enormous. Few realize how gigantic it is. The ozone hole was speculated to be caused by refrigerant. Trouble is, this is not proven. But the fact we now pay out the nose for other replacements is a fact. Look at the size of Australia. Darned near double it and you have Antarctica without the ice shelves included. But we all know it has enormous ice shelves. Which country has the biggest hole in the ozone layer? The ozone hole over Antarctica is usually more pronounced on the South American side of the frozen continent. Countries that are affected by it the most are Argentina,Chile, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. The largest ozone hole ever observed in the Antarctic was reported by NASA in September 2000.
That's wrong. Life thrives just fine in the cold. Do you think a massive herd of caribou or a school of cold-water cod isn't life? Your fallacy there is considering tropical life to be the only life that counts. Almost all economists disagree. Only one, Pielke, agrees with you. Thus, it's another cherrypicking fallacy on your part to pretend that his opinion is the only opinion. Proven, you mean. CFC breakdown products, which have no natural sources, were found in high concentrations in the areas of ozone depletion. That's a smoking gun, and it's why nobody except conspiracy theorists doubts the science about ozone depletion any more.
I don't think you're going to get much argument that global warming was beneficial to humans for part of our history. But, the overwhelming majority of studies conclude that any benefit has run it's course and that further warming will reduce Earth's carrying capacity for humans and global GDP both.
"Wise sole"??? Must have been a foot note But again this is a strawman First attributing something that is not true before debunking the lie
You understand that there are more things that influence climate than CO2 right? Another greenhouse gas that is increasing the temperature is methane and if Greenland melts its methane will be released and will have a significant climate impact. Long-term trends climate trends from the sun, and sulfur pollution impacts temperature. There are short-term factors like volcanic activity, solar cycles, and el nino/la nina ocean current cycles. There are also feedbacks to warming like the earth having a darker color and darker things soaking more heat, warmer oceans will release water vapor, CO2, and other gasses warming the planet even more, and the ground and melted ice will release more greenhouse gasses when warmer. Warmer air can hold more water vapor which is a greenhouse gas. So lets explain the temperature trends we have seen. The warming before 1940 was due to a combined increase in solar activity and CO2. The slight cooling until 1970 was due to a drop-off in solar activity and huge emissions of aerosol pollusion that kept out heat and cooled the planet. The huge expansion in CO2 in the 1960s and afterwards soon over-powered this and we saw significant warming. In 1998 we had a huge el nino and so temperatures dropped off afterwards. In 2016 there was another El Nino and temperatures spiked again. Throughout all these variable things like El Ninos, solar trends, and aerosol increase the average temperature has been gradually increasing and has increased by 2 F because of that constant CO2 forcing.
Winning tells me for you this is a game. So long as you think you won, you are out of my mind. BTW, I do not believe that in logic, a question becomes ad hom.
