Is climate change risk an invention of self interested and stupid?

It is often argued that human induced climate change is basically invented by scientists in need of funding, and credulous liberals like al gore

here is a you tube video of an interview with hank Paulson.... former head of Goldman Saks. And treasury secretary during bush administration. He might be wrong on the topic.... but He certainly is not stupid, nor is he in need of money. Nor is he a liberal.

go to 3:00 minutes in to hear his opinion about climate change

 

Well, it is more a mass hysteria built on computer model RCP8.5, the worst case/least likely scenario, used as business as usual.

A few scientists reputations and a lot of institutional funding require a belief in the alarmists scenario.

 

Is climate change risk an invention of self interested and stupid?

To answer this question I would ask people to do what many have decided to avoid, and read the data.

 

I disagree. The science of anthropogenic global warming began in the 19th century and was met with skepticism by many climate scientists until there was solid evidence in the 1960's. There

was no hysteria among the scientific community then and there isn't any hysteria among those educated on the subject today. My opinion on the subject is a result of studying the science and

is not dependent on what other people think. Most of the concern about the climate does not come from the RCP8.5 scenario but comes from any scenario that would cause the earth's GMT

to rise above 1850 levels by either 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius. That would include both the RCP4.5 and RCP6.0 scenarios in addition to the RCP8.5 scenario. Only the RCP2.6 scenario is considered safe.

Some of the climate activists may seem hysterical and even if they are hysteriical that doesn't mean that the science is bogus.

 

Climate scientists have more than computer models of the climate on which to base future projections of climate change. The have evidence from studying past climate change, e.g. ice core data from Greenland and Antarctica, which can be used to determine climate sensitivity. They can multiply that climate sensitivity by all of climate forcings, perturbations to the climate system expressed in equivalent radiation forcing, and estimate the future GMT change. There is also a mathematical expression not involving climate models using "climate forcings" that can derive a plot of GMT versus time.

 

I am fine with all of that if you just leave me out of it. K?

 

The only reliable data starts in 1979 and the only reasonable way to “predict” the next 10 years is to calculate a trajectory based on the last 10 years data. The worst possible strategy is to artificially increase the cost of energy to reduce the use of fossil fuels and thus reduce economic growth.

 

Define "climate change".

 

Define "climate change".

What "data"? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

Not science, but religion. "Climate Scientists" are anything but... Evidence is not proof.

The "scientific community", whatever that is, is not science either.

No, you are rejecting science. You are also rejecting logic and mathematics.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough thermometers.

They reject science. They are practicing a religion (aka, the Church of Global Warming).

 

So his entire argument is a specious claim that it is "well documented".

I'm sure that is a very compelling argument to many idiots.

But not very impressive to intelligent folks.

 

They are not scientists. They reject science.

Computer models are not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

There is no "the climate". Earth has MANY climates.

Weather is a random event. Random events cannot be predicted.

Define "climate change".

Evidence is not proof.

Define "climate change".

That does not represent all of Earth.

Define "climate sensitivity". Define "climate forcing". Define "climate system". Define "radiation forcing". Random events cannot be predicted.

Define "climate forcing".


Undefined buzzwords are meaningless. They cannot be the basis of any argument.

 

so, you think Hank Paulson is an idiot?

 

btw.... my points were pretty clear, but let me me restate them

climate “skeptics” often use several means to discount the opinions of others
My claim is that these clearly do not apply to Paulson


1. Skeptics claim AGW advocates are motivated by financial interest. I say this is not true of Paulson. Do you disagree?

2. skeptics claim AGW advocates are simply liberals who want to force people to do foolish things. I say this is not true of Paulson. Do you disagree

3. Skeptics claim AGW advocates are simply stupid... they are suckered by baseless group think. I say Paulson has a history of dispassionately evaluating evidence in order to make correct investment decisions. Do yo disagree?

 

Imo, the whole controversy over the accuracy of models is grossly misguided (for what ever reason). The possibility and concern about potential climate change existed long before the current modelers were developed, long before there was the computational capability to do such modeling.

initial concerns were solely based upon calculations based upon fundamental physical properties and simple calculations based upon those well known physical properties. Those calculations provided a red flag that.... all thing being equal... there was some basis for concern, some basis to do more detailed study to get a more precise picture of whether anything was being Missed, and a more accurate understanding of potential consequences in case it turned out that concerns were well founded.

For example.... just saying that we can expect a 2 degree temperature increase does not give any idea of what the impact of that would be, Also... a rough estimate of 2 degrees might more accurately be 1 degree or 3 degrees.... which a substantial difference.... so more detailed modeling is designed to reduce the uncertainty about the size of the problem

bottom line, there has been essentially no dispute about the fundamental physics for more than a century. The only real dispute is whether we are missing something, and what is the scope of the problem.

The questions about whether we are missing something are questions that have been extensively examined in the context of creating these models. And the answer is that we are not missing any magic factor that will save us from the impact of AGW

The questions about the scope of the problem still contain high amounts of uncertainty and controversy. Never the less, the actual data about climate change corresponds to a high degree to the consensus expectations of the models.... and, in fact, the data shows a fairly high conformance to the simple physical models presented almost 150 years ago.... long before there was any concept of government funded research

 

I've seen you make this claim several times. How many thermometers are being used currently, and how many do we need to use?

 

Indeed I have.

Depends on which entity you wish to reference. If I recall correctly, NASA makes use of some 7,500 thermometers. I think NOAA makes use of some 6,000 or so thermometers. Other entities may make use of more or less thermometers than NASA or NOAA.

Depends on how low of a margin of error is acceptable for you. If you wish to get within at least a +- 10degF margin of error, you need at least 200 million thermometers. This, of course, is assuming that all thermometers are uniformly spaced and simultaneously read (to eliminate location and time biases).

 

all respect, but the point of posting this video was not to convince anyone... the obvious fact is that trump everyone who cares has already made up their mind based upon evidence they find convincing

my point was to address some points that are repetitively made by the skeptic community.. ie that people promote AGW for financial reasons, or political reasons, or because they lack intelligence, or because they are thoughtless followers of a crowd..... and I feel Paulson does not correspond to any of those characterizations.

 

We dont use Thermometers any more.

A better question to ask is how many temperature stations across the world were there in 1880


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Historical_Climatology_Network

 

And what is your basis for needing 200 million thermometers? Can you show us your math that shows the current measurements are off and why 200 million are needed?

 

This doesn’t answer my question. He, and I assume you, are saying the current temperatures we have are incorrect. What is the evidence they are incorrect?

 

Urban heat is making them incorrect of thermocouples hooked up to digital

Once again no one uses mercury Thermometers


We have satellites now and Argo temperature bouys.

What we are saying is we dont have accurate data from the 1880s and before

Jesus christ you can buy them at harbor freight for under $20 bucks

 

you are making assertions with no evidence to support them. What is your evidence current temperature data is wrong?

 

No what I am saying is the temperature data from the 1880s is wrong..

 

And your evidence it’s wrong is?