Climate science arrogance

There is a lot of psychology mixed in with this. That is one of the reasons that the biggest CAGW advocate, John Cook of (not so) Skeptical Science is studying psychology.

 

interesting that you should bring that up. here is a recent article on how fear based appeals actually turn off skeptics. The author might note than slandering skeptics through the use of the word denier is equally off putting and is not going to convince anyone to change their mind. For me it just makes me more determined to expose the fraud behind the curtain.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-psychology-of-climate-change

 

An even more obvious question is, why does Dr. Spencer zero out all data at 1983? Because if you wanted to hide the incline, and if you wanted to be deliberately deceptive, you would choose a zero-point year in which the surface temperature was anomalously high, so that subsequent years would appear to be lower.

Care to guess whether if 1983 was anomalously high or not?

As far as I'm concerned, that's absolute proof that Dr. Roy is cheating with this chart. He has a political agenda that differs from any devotion to the truth he might have once had.

Next unanswered question: why does Dr. Roy only use 90 CMIP5 models, when 101 are available? Which ones did he eliminate, and why?

Next important unanswered question: Why does Dr. Roy use HADCRUT4 for surface temperatures? Because it is known and published in peer-reviewed literature (and freely admitted by the scientists who publish HADCRUT4 data) that this temperature series underestimates global temperatures by omitting much of the rapidly-warming Arctic. And further, there are at least two corrections to HADCRUT4, published in peer-reviewed literature, that take this into account, and which Dr. Roy could have used, if he were really interested in being honest rather than in suckering the rubes who read his blog.

And that's what you are, jackdog: a rube, suckered by a scientist who lets his political opinions and even his religious beliefs trump his scientific judgement.

 

Just a guess on my part but probably because 1983 was when the Community Climate System Model (CCSM) was created. But then if you are really curious go to his website and ask.

here is the page where he posted the graph. If you have any comments or questions you can post them there

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

As I have stated here before I am not a climatologist and my only real interest in the subject of climatology is in the anthropological aspects of climate change and how past civilizations have dealt with the various warming and cooling phases of Earths climate.

 

Bunk. Climate models have been created for decades, and are updated frequently. You can pick any year and find a climate model that was created or revised in that year. Dr. Roy picked 1983 because he has an agenda.

Since you refuse to defend the graph you posted, I assume that you will not post this non-peer-reviewed piece of junk again?

 

I would hazard to say that Dr Spencer has published more peer reviewed papers that failed cartoonist John Cook of skeptical nonsense has yet I will bet you read and quote his site frequently

I would suggest you cool it on the melodrama though. I realize that it is upsetting that the case for AGW is evaporating but no need for the drama of your last sentence

 

If you want to quote Dr. Roy's peer-reviewed work, I'm fine with that. But when you quote the junk he writes on his blog that couldn't pass peer-review, and give it the same credence as real science, it's clear to me that you're just another one of the rubes he intended to dupe, and succeeded with.

It's not melodrama. It's a simple request to stop posting non-peer-reviewed junk. If you had any actual evidence you wouldn't need to stoop so low.

 

and it is obvious to me that a political point even if it is more important than the thousands that will suffer and die because they cannot afford to heat or cool their homes

 

Oh brilliant. And I suppose you can explain how a revenue neutral carbon tax will cause anyone to not afford anything?

The economic illiteracy of the right is only exceeded by their scientific illiteracy.

 

pretty obvious that this is about politics not science when you use the word "tax" in a post concerning the topic

the neutral carbon tax only works where most of the power is generated by carbon free sources. If you are in a area where you have a reliable 24 and 7 hydro electric or geo thermal then great. Only place I am aware of that it has worked is British Columbia which has a lot of hydroelectric. If you are aware of anywhere else then link it

 

You brought up economic first, when you talked about people not being able to afford to heat or cool their homes. If you don't want to talk econ, don't bring it up.

And you base this nonsense on ... the peer-reviewed paper you read on FOX News?

When you tax something, you get less of it. If you know of a place where this hasn't worked, link it.

 

What about the other components of fossil fuel emissions?
Nitric oxides
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Particulates i.e. soot

Why aren't these components addressed in debates? How are these beneficial?

 

nope just only example I could find where it worked was British Columbia where they are fortunate to have a lot of Hydroelectric power. It is just common sense that it would only work where there is a practical alternative to switch from carbon to. If you are aware of any other place it is successful then link to it. I would be interested in seeing how it works where carbon based is the only practical way of electrical generation. If you can't provide any examples just say so and will assume there are none. I certainly cannot find any doing a Google search with the search terms "revenue neutral carbon tax success"

 

As far as I'm aware, BC is the first jurisdiction in the world to have a carbon tax. Which means so far it's worked 100% of the time.

 

so if I catch a fish in the ocean and catch a fish the first time, I could fish in cement plant and catch a fish?

Might have guessed that you assume what works in one area will work everywhere. Complex thought takes affort

If the program has been successful for 6 years and no one has emulated it, there is a reason why

 

You were the one who claimed, on the basis on no evidence whatsoever, that a carbon tax wouldn't work. Put up or shut up.

In fact I assumed nothing. You were the one who assumed, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that it wouldn't.

Perhaps that's why it's beyond you.

There certainly is. It's because the idiots of Denierstan oppose it, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

 

I am listening. Still waiting on you to show me that it would work somewhere that only has a carbon source for 24 and 7 electrical generation. Now plain old common sense tells me that if I enacted a 10% carbon tax there electrical prices will increase 10%. If it is in an area where 50% of the electrical power comes from the electrical prices only increase 5% I do think the would be a difference in taking 5% or 10% from the economy even if it is just a short term loan (with no interest) to the government

 

You were the one who made the idiotic claim it wouldn't work, so it's up to you to provide evidence for it. I'm not going to do your work for you. That would be socialism.

Apparently even the simplest economics isn't taught in Denierstan. No wonder you're deluded.

 

what I am saying is there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Do you deny that ?

 

Of course I do. Because there are reams of economic studies, unrefuted by you and unchallenged by you, that show that it would work. As anyone who knows anything about economics would tell you.

 

Since you claim there are reams of studies maybe you can link one that compares energy prices in BC from before the carbon tax and afterward for a 4 or 5 year period and other Canadian territories showing the price inflation of gasoline and electric KWh over the same period. I did a few searches last even and could not find any

The biggest issue I have with this is the same as any other carbon tax and that is it's impact on the poor. Such a tax would not affect the rich at all, John Kerry could still afford to send his yacht to the Bahamas, Al Gore could still fly around in his private jets. Someone lie my self might have to cut back to taking the boat to the lake down to 2 weekends a month instead of 3. However the single Mom who is working 2 jobs as a waitress and driving a 20 year old beater and still barely making ends meet can't afford to loan the government 50 dollars a month for them to use.

Anyway I am open minded about it but would like to see some actual numbers and studies

 

The tax works if carbon emissions are lowered, regardless of the cost of fossil fuel. From your question I assume that you concede that the BC carbon tax actually works as intended.

That depends entirely on how the tax is structured and how the revenues are used. If we were to rebate 100% of carbon tax revenues on a per-capita basis, the poor (who use less energy than average) would benefit. In BC, they used the revenues to lower property and income tax, which also works.

Peer-reviewed studies:
Rabe, Barry G., and Christopher P. Borick. "Carbon taxation and policy labeling: Experience from American states and Canadian provinces." Review of Policy Research 29.3 (2012): 358-382.
Aldy, Joseph E., and Robert N. Stavins. "The Promise and Problems of Pricing Carbon Theory and Experience." The Journal of Environment & Development 21.2 (2012): 152-180.
Elgie, Stewart, and Jessica McClay. "Policy Commentary/Commentaire BC’s Carbon Tax Shift Is Working Well after Four Years (Attention Ottawa)." Canadian Public Policy 39 (2013): S1-S10.

Gray literature:
http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/bc_carbon_tax.pdf
http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/hc434/ctax3.PDF

Popular press:
The Economist says BC's carbon tax is working, and not huring the poor.
The Financial Post says it's working.

 

Thanks fot the links poor but I had alreqdy found and read most of them last eve. None had the data I was looking for but an hour or so I came upon this

http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rn...prcngtrndfct2011/cndnnrgprcngtrndfct-eng.html. A quick glance shows that pre and post tax KWh cost inflation was minimal as was natural gas costs, gasoline cost however skyrocketed in comparison to other Canadian cities. That still does not alleviate my concerns for the poor and working class whose budgets might be tight. As I stated earlier for people with a lot of disposable income it would have minimal impact and perhaps with some tweaks it would work even for the poor.

Still though I am not convinced there is a problem that needs solving to begin with. I know from historical records the current warming is not unprecedented and am reasonably confident the increase in Co2 will have a beneficial effect if in fact the Earth does continue to warm

 

It wouldn't matter what the deniers were called, there is a well-established psychological phenomenon whereby people actually become more entrenched in a false belief when confronted with evidence that shows that belief to be incorrect. It's called the Backfire Effect.

 

Which of course CAGW proponents are completely susceptible to.