« NYC Prep: Guests of Guests | Main | Is this the singularity? »

July 29, 2009

Comments

"Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety."

Michael Crichton made a similar point in his novel State of Fear (and the non-fiction commentary and exhaustive annotated bibliography he appended to it). He noted that global warming started getting hyped twenty years ago, just as the previous source of anxiety (potential nuclear winter) was receding with the end of the Cold War.

"This has been my point for a while, global warming is one of the main beliefs of the new post-Christian religion. Ian Pilmer, who is "vehemently anti-creationist," also understands the religion connection."

Whatever one may think about the truth of Christianity, it is now crystal clear that Western civilization was under much better leadership when the elites still believed in the divinity of Jesus.

I have to say I find it so ironic that many on the Left, who are openly hostile to religion (usually Christianity), are often the most zealous of Gaia Cultists.

At least Christians will admit that theirs is:

a) religion
b) by definition, based on faith, not science

The Gaia Cultists demonstrate only the negative aspects of religion, and none of the positive, all the while claiming THAT THEIRS IS NOT A RELIGION!!!

Hahhahahahahahahah! I-fucking-ron-y.

which concept are you more certain of, AGW or HBD? If it's the latter, might I suggest easing off of writing about the former? Even if there's a 20% chance AGW is occurring, and future evidence shows that, indeed, it does occur, you're gonna have egg on your face.

In other words, just when I think there's something to this HBD thing, I see a post on how AGW is a "con trick." and I think "ahh, not to worry; they're probably full of shit about the HBD thing as well."

Proof of more Beta behaviour? Alphas of yore hated nature and took great pride in converting the wild into cities and farms. Likewise the belief the world is coming to the end - Alphas are pro-active and make their future whilst Betas are fatalists who presume is the world is coming to an end so they give up hope and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For the wealthy and young, AGW is a tremendously self-aggrandizing belief system. The young get to pretend they're saving the world by living in a dorm and driving a small car, while the rich get to pretend that they're saving the world by installing LED lighting in their vacation homes.

The young and the wealthy are the two groups that the media want to please. Is it any wonder they treat AGW as a given?

"warming is one of the main beliefs of the new post-Christian religion."

I agree. In my opinion, the basic metanarrative is as follows:

(1) The natural state of man is harmony, peace, and equality among all of the worlds different groups. e.g. men and women; black, white, and asian; gay and straight; and so on. All peoples are equal and harbor the potential to achieve greatness.

(2) Then white people came along and ruined everything, causing racism, racial inequality, class inequality, environmental degradation and so forth.

(3) The process needs to be reversed to restore the natural order and harmony to the world. White people need to be eliminated as a separate group.

"He noted that global warming started getting hyped twenty years ago, just as the previous source of anxiety (potential nuclear winter) was receding with the end of the Cold War."

Totally, 100% true. I can remember the exact time that global warming burst on the scene. We had a brutally hot summer in New York in '85 or so. The unusual heat got the topic of global warming started in the minds of New York City based journalists. There was a Time magazine cover story on the topic that really kicked it off.

I was listening to "COCKtails with Patrick" on Cosmo radio on XM yesterday (I'm not gay or anything like that, and neither is Patrick. I actually just like the show, he talks about what chicks are thinking, what guys are thinking. It's educational and entertaining) and he had some chick who has a book and a website about having a "Green" wedding.

The most striking thing about the conversation was how ignorant and stupid the two of them sounded. They really sounded exactly like a fundamentalist sounds on a televangelist show. They obviously hold their "green" views on the level of belief, not knowledge. They both do much of their "greeniness" based on guilt and simply the belief that it is "right" to, say, recycle, not on the hard fact that recycling actually results in less CO2 being emitted, or whatever.

Engineer,

I majored in environmental sciences in college, and I remember sitting in a lecture hall when someone asked the dean of the department about global warming. This dean, a dignified old gentlemen who looked a little like Max von Sydow, had spent career in water and waste water treatment: making sure that when people turned on their taps, clean water came out, and when they flushed their toilets, their waste went somewhere where it was treated properly and wouldn't poison anybody. He didn't say anything for a moment, and then said something like,

"The summer of 1934 was quite warm, as I remember it".

And then he just went on to the next question.

Ian Plimer is not a great source to believe when it comes to global warming. See http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

"it is now crystal clear that Western civilization was under much better leadership when the elites still believed in the divinity of Jesus."

The elites probably haven't truly believed in the divinity of Jesus for at least 500 years. Arguably by the Renaissance most smart people had figured out Christianity was nonsensical. What you mean to say is "it is now crystal clear that Western civilization was under much better leadership when the elites PROFESSED PUBLICLY to believe in the divinity of Jesus" which is where you are heading into Leo Strauss territory.

This is exactly what society does in reaction to HBD. There is plenty of evidence that HBD exists, yet many people ignore it. They simply lable these concepts as "racist." And hey, you can ignore scientific studies as soon as you call them "racist propoganda" right? "Of course you believe in HBD, it supports the idea that you're superior." Ah, checkmate! Clearly then, HBD can't be true.
Yet here I am reading the comments and I see the exact same thing on the other side. You can ignore all the scientific studies and near scientific consensus about AGW, simply label them as "gaia worshipers." Come up with a semi-plausable explanation as to why people would be interested in AGW.
"To hell with all the climate data. They came up with it to be closer to their Gaia God. Yeah, that's the ticket."


"near scientific consensus about AGW"

There is NOT a near scientific consensus about AGW. Look, your most recent position on this blog was as follows:

"virtually all scientific groups oriented in climate science state emphatically that global warming is going to cause some pretty massive problems"

As of yet, you have been unable to back up this claim.

In any event, if you want to compare "global warming" and HBD, you might ask yourself the following question:

In each debate, which side is attempting to silence and crush dissent?

"As of yet, you have been unable to back up this claim."
o rly?:
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

"In each debate, which side is attempting to silence and crush dissent?"
If I'm teaching a class on biology, I'm going to crush dissent about germ theory, evolution, heritability etc.

Let me ask you a question. If, as it's been postulated, that scientists are afraid to offer dissenting opinions on climate change, how come there are no retired climate scientists out there refuting AGW? With Iraq, retired generals came out against the war. Okay, so how come climate change scientists don't do the same?

But hey, if don't think there's a scientific consensus, as I mentioned before we could pick a regionally accredited U.S. school at random and ask all the professors of any life sciences (e.g. climate/geology) if they agree with AGW. Perhaps even in private? Like to put money on where the consensus would be? I'd be willing to give you odds. perhaps 10-to-1. That means if I win I'd get 10, if I lose I give 100. We might even set the bar as low as 10% disagreement. So if out of 10 life science professors, 1 refutes AGW, you'd get $100. Otherwise I'd get $10. Heh-- you never know-- you might get MIT and get that one professors who disagrees with AGW who just happens to get major funding from oil companies.

The main religion of the First World Urban Elite is the Cult of Equality.

"o rly?: "

Yes really. Please QUOTE the part you think shows 3 prominent organizations stating "ephatically that global warming is going to cause some pretty massive problems"

In other words, put up or shut up. Although somehow I will expect you to do neither.

"come there are no retired climate scientists out there refuting AGW?"

If I can show you one retired scientist whose field relates to climate and who has expressed skepticism, will you admit you are in the wrong?

"But hey, if don't think there's a scientific consensus, as I mentioned before we could pick a regionally accredited U.S. school at random and ask all the professors of any life sciences (e.g. climate/geology) if they agree with AGW. "

I'd be will to take a bet along those lines as the question is phrased correctly. The question would have to be something like this:

Do you agree that there is overwhelming evidence that mankind's CO2 emissions will cause major negative effects for humanity? Please answer "yes," "no," or "i don't know."

I'm pretty confident that if you survey 100 geologists, climatologists, and meteorologists who are professors at accredited universities, the percentage who answer "yes" will be far less than 90%.

Yes really. Please QUOTE the part you think shows 3 prominent organizations stating "ephatically that global warming is going to cause some pretty massive problems"
American Meterological Society
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
The Royal Society
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
American Chemical Society
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1907&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=0cbd57b5-5766-456d-800b-680b88c1c8bf

"If I can show you one retired scientist whose field relates to climate and who has expressed skepticism, will you admit you are in the wrong?"
Obviously, if one retired scientists shows serious skepticism towards AGW it doesn't mean AGW is wrong. But if you have one, I'd like to see it.

"I'm pretty confident that if you survey 100 geologists, climatologists, and meteorologists who are professors at accredited universities, the percentage who answer "yes" will be far less than 90%."
Let's pick twenty at random. If 4 or more show "substantial doubt" about AGW, I'll give you $100. If less than 4, you give me $10. All that I ask is that those experts be randomly selected.
Actually let's lose the money thing. All that'd be at stake is pride. Loser has to admit they were wrong.

JohnM, do you know what the word "QUOTE" means? Please QUOTE the part of the statements you linked to which express "ephatically that global warming is going to cause some pretty massive problems"

If you cannot do so, please just admit that you cannot rather than evade my request.

"Obviously, if one retired scientists shows serious skepticism towards AGW it doesn't mean AGW is wrong."

The question is whether YOU are wrong. I just want to make sure the goalposts are firmly in place before I waste time proving it.

Again my question:

If I can show you one retired scientist whose field relates to climate and who has expressed skepticism, will you admit you are in the wrong?

"If 4 or more show "substantial doubt" about AGW"

I'm a little confused. Showing "substantial doubt" is not one of the options in answering the question I proposed. There are 3 choices: "yes," "no" and "I don't know"

The question is as follows:

Do you agree that there is overwhelming evidence that mankind's CO2 emissions will cause major negative effects for humanity? Please answer "yes," "no," or "i don't know."


By the way, since JohnM refuses to actually back his claim, I took it upon myself to find the following quote from his first link:

" there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond."

Now, is this the same thing as claiming that mankind's CO2 emissions will cause warming which will have "massive" negative consequences? Of course not.

In fact, I pretty much agree with the statement. i.e. I agree that

(1) mankind's activities have had and will have measurable effects on the climate;

(2) climate is constantly changing;

(3) therefore mankind's activities contribute to climate change; and

(4) climate change -- whether manmade or not -- has had and will continue to have imporant impacts on mankind.

None of this stuff is terribly controversial.

And none of the statement is equivalent to the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions will result in massive negative effects on mankind.

JohnM, I hope you are reasonable enough to acknowledge that the statement you linked to does not say what you seem to think it says.

“Please QUOTE the part of the statements you linked to which express "ephatically that global warming is going to cause some pretty massive problems"
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6235

“However the IPCC has pointed out that as climate change progresses it is likely that negative effects would begin to dominate almost everywhere. Increasing temperatures are likely, for example, to increase the frequency and severity of weather events such as heat waves, storms and flooding.”

“If I can show you one retired scientist whose field relates to climate and who has expressed skepticism, will you admit you are in the wrong?”

You don’t understand how science works. Two important ideas: “peer-reviewed research” and “scientific consensus”

You could present 1, 10, or 100 ‘retired scientists’ who express skepticism. But they might be scientists with no knowledge of climate studies (i.e. civil engineers) or just lackies for the oil industry. That’s why we look for scientific consensus and peer-reviewed research.

“Do you agree that there is overwhelming evidence that mankind's CO2 emissions will cause major negative effects for humanity? Please answer "yes," "no," or "i don't know."”
I don’t know. Then again, I’m not a climate change scientist. That’s why I look to, again, the scientific consensus and peer-reviewed research. Also, AGW doesn’t necessarily have to relate to CO2.

“And none of the statement is equivalent to the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions will result in massive negative effects on mankind.”
I’m not interested in the first clause of your sentence, only the 2nd, the “massive negative effects.” All of the links I’ve posted have clearly stated the massive, negative effects.

Also, I see you’re dodging the challenge. Will you admit that you’d probably lose the wager?

The Climate Bill is EVEN WORSE, and will act basically as a wealth transfer from red states to blue states.

In the bill for example, California will recieve 145% of the allowances it needs to make and consume electricity, but Tennessee only recieves 73% of the allowances it needs to make and consume electricity. That means in simple terms that California can make money (and make its electric rates go down or fund whatever) by selling some of that extra 45% of allowances it does not need to a state that didn’t recieve enough in the bill…………………..like Tennessee.

Basically Tennessee would have to pay California for the right to have electricity.

This bill isn’t about global warming (more like Global cooling as its getting colder and has been doing so since 1998) at ALL. Its income redistribution from some states to others and everybody on the “in”, Wall Street, General Electric, California, gets a big financial BOOST, while everyone else who needs electricity gets screwed.

The same people who support this bill are the same people who file lawsuits every time any entity attempts to build a new nuclear plant, so they HAVE to keep using coal to make power. Just like the bevy of lawsuits filed to stop the TVA from building a second reactor at Watts Bar in east Tennessee. Get it?

"“However the IPCC has pointed out"

Your claim was about what "scientific groups" have stated, not the IPCC. Are you counting the IPCC as a "scientific group"?

"You don’t understand how science works. Two important ideas: 'peer-reviewed research' and 'scientific consensus'"

I have no idea what your point is. You claimed that there are "no retired climate scientists out there refuting AGW."

Are you abandoning that claim now?

"Will you admit that you’d probably lose the wager? "

It depends which wager we are talking about. As stated before I am pretty confident I will win the fair wager which I proposed.

Do you agree that the wager I proposed is fair and reasonable?

Oh and by the way JohnM, do you agree that the American Meteorological Society statement you linked to does NOT say what you claimed it did?

"Your claim was about what "scientific groups" have stated, not the IPCC. Are you counting the IPCC as a "scientific group"?"
No. The Royal Society is stating their aggreement with the IPCC, which asserts AGW. Hence TRS asserts AGW.

"I have no idea what your point is. You claimed that there are "no retired climate scientists out there refuting AGW."
No, I didn't 'claim' anything. I asked how come there are none. Actually, let's see who you have... let's see some retired climate scientists who are all saying it's a bunch of alarmism. Notice I said "some."

Are you abandoning that claim now?

"It depends which wager we are talking about. As stated before I am pretty confident I will win the fair wager which I proposed."
And what was your wager?

You might want to read this:
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
http://climaticidechronicles.org/2009/01/21/new-poll-shows-most-earth-scientists-agree-on-global-warming/

Oh, and before you attempt to weasel out of that by proclaming that climate change might not be that bad, here's scientific american's article on that:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-impacts
Unless you think that's some sort of liberal rag.

"And what was your wager?"

You can't be bothered to scroll back a few comments? Here is what I proposed:

______________

I'd be will to take a bet along those lines as the question is phrased correctly. The question would have to be something like this:

Do you agree that there is overwhelming evidence that mankind's CO2 emissions will cause major negative effects for humanity? Please answer "yes," "no," or "i don't know."

I'm pretty confident that if you survey 100 geologists, climatologists, and meteorologists who are professors at accredited universities, the percentage who answer "yes" will be far less than 90%.

___________

Do you agree that the wager I proposed is fair and reasonable?

Simple yes or no question.

____________

"No, I didn't 'claim' anything. I asked how come there are none."

:shrug: I don't see any essential difference. If somebody asks "Why is X true," they are claiming (at least implicitly) that X is true.

_________

"Oh, and before you attempt to weasel out of that"

Weasel out of what? What are you talking about?

This whole line of argument is one huge ad hominem.

[Do you agree that there is overwhelming evidence that mankind's CO2 emissions will cause major negative effects for humanity? Please answer "yes," "no," or "i don't know."]
No, that's not appropriate because AGW isn't necessarily CO2 emissions.

"I'm pretty confident that if you survey 100 geologists, climatologists, and meteorologists who are professors at accredited universities, the percentage who answer "yes" will be far less than 90%."
Upon further research, as only climatologists study long term weather patterns, it'd be most appropriate to ask them.

Let's place "far less than 90%" as 80%.

So let's survey 100 climatologists who are professors at accredited universities with the question:
[Do you agree that there is overwhelming evidence that manmade emissions will cause major negative effects for humanity? Please answer "yes," "no," or "i don't know."]

Of course, you may just want to play it safe and check out the data yourself:
http://climaticidechronicles.org/2009/01/21/new-poll-shows-most-earth-scientists-agree-on-global-warming/

This debate is over. If you want to go ahead with this, post on the next AGW thread that HS posts.

"No, that's not appropriate because AGW isn't necessarily CO2 emissions."

Again, I'm confused. The hypothesis we are being sold is that CO2 emissions will cause warming which will be amplified by water vapor feedback and result in serious negative consequences for mankind.

We are being told that mankind needs to drastically limit its CO2 emissions.

If it turns out that CO2 is harmless but some other emission causes big problems, then Al Gore will have been wrong and mankind will have probably wasted a lot of money trying to limit CO2 emissions.

"This debate is over."

i.e. you are tired of being caught in contradictions and tired of constantly revising your position.

Whatever. You claim that there is a consensus, but it's not clear exactly what this supposed consensus actually is.

Which is unsurprising because, as I've maintained for some time, the whole global warming fiasco is based on what boils down to a bait and switch.

The comments to this entry are closed.