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

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ARDY, Dec 24, 2019.

  1. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,384
    Likes Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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

     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2019
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    95,466
    Likes Received:
    26,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    AFM and Bondo like this.
  3. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,321
    Likes Received:
    9,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Diablo likes this.
  4. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    crank and ARDY like this.
  5. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  6. Rush_is_Right

    Rush_is_Right Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3,297
    Likes Received:
    3,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am fine with all of that if you just leave me out of it. K?
     
    bricklayer likes this.
  7. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    31,019
    Likes Received:
    6,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  8. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Define "climate change".
     
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Define "climate change".

    What "data"? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
     
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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).
     
  11. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,568
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
    ToddWB likes this.
  12. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  13. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,384
    Likes Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so, you think Hank Paulson is an idiot?
     
  14. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,384
    Likes Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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?
     
  15. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,384
    Likes Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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


     
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,392
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've seen you make this claim several times. How many thermometers are being used currently, and how many do we need to use?
     
  17. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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).
     
  18. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,384
    Likes Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  19. william kurps

    william kurps Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,868
    Trophy Points:
    113

    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



    400px-GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
    Hairball likes this.
  20. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,392
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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?
     
  21. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,392
    Trophy Points:
    113
  22. william kurps

    william kurps Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,868
    Trophy Points:
    113

    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


    41pcu2mOxyL._AC_SY400_ML1_.jpg
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2019
  23. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,392
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you are making assertions with no evidence to support them. What is your evidence current temperature data is wrong?
     
  24. william kurps

    william kurps Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,868
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No what I am saying is the temperature data from the 1880s is wrong..
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2019
  25. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,105
    Likes Received:
    6,392
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And your evidence it’s wrong is?
     

Share This Page