APS and the Global Warming Scam

[BaalChatzaf]

Not believing what they say is not the only reason for not "paving every industrial nation end to end with nuclear power generating stations". There are many ways to solve the global warming issue. I think Objectivists and other small government people should come up with their own solutions that don't involve violating rights on a massive scale or taking over the world or whatever, instead of irrationally denying climate science.

How about reverting to hunter gathering and living the Simple Life. All we have to do is eliminate 99.999 percent of the human population and we are ready to go back the neolithic Way of Life. Of course it means a reduction of life expectancy down to 30 some odd years.

If you want to keep industry, science, technology and efficient food production then pave every industrial country from end to end with nuclear generating states. No CO2. All the electricity we could want and then some and finally the Hydrogren Economy. We a lot of excess electricity we can break water down to O2 and H2. No CO2 in site.

Of course the eco-phreaks oppose nuclear energy because it might make everyone comfortable and rich which contradicts their agenda of bringing us back to the Glorious Past.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Not believing what they say is not the only reason for not "paving every industrial nation end to end with nuclear power generating stations". There are many ways to solve the global warming issue. I think Objectivists and other small government people should come up with their own solutions that don't involve violating rights on a massive scale or taking over the world or whatever, instead of irrationally denying climate science.

How about reverting to hunter gathering and living the Simple Life. All we have to do is eliminate 99.999 percent of the human population and we are ready to go back the neolithic Way of Life. Of course it means a reduction of life expectancy down to 30 some odd years.

If you want to keep industry, science, technology and efficient food production then pave every industrial country from end to end with nuclear generating states. No CO2. All the electricity we could want and then some and finally the Hydrogren Economy. We a lot of excess electricity we can break water down to O2 and H2. No CO2 in site.

Of course the eco-phreaks oppose nuclear energy because it might make everyone comfortable and rich which contradicts their agenda of bringing us back to the Glorious Past.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

This is all just a long-winded appeal to consequences. Just because you don't like the consequences of believing that AGW is true, that doesn't make it false.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How about reverting to hunter gathering and living the Simple Life...

Bob,

Here's what I mentioned elsewhere:

I may be the only one on the site that thinks that pumping increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea, but I'll see how that goes.

Jim,

Nobody I know of thinks doing that is a good idea. When it gets to the movement to contain cow farts, I start wondering how serious all this stuff is, though.

The subtext of the debate is always over money and power masked with climate change. As to the technology, I am more than convinced human ingenuity, not power over human producers, will fix any bad problems.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

(And let's not forget that the models' predictions actually HAVE panned out.)

It's impossible to forget something which wasn't ever in one's thoughts.

Ellen

And you once again fail to back up anything you say with any sort of evidence whatsoever. (and I'm supposedly the religious fanatic...)

If you'd properly done enough homework to form a reasoned viewpoint, you wouldn't have to be asking for the information you keep asking for.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

To amend my last post, both you and Ellen mentioned that we actually might need more CO-2 in the atmosphere.

(overview) We're in a CO2-deprived period. CO2 is good for plant growth. The re-radiance effect is logarithmic, meaning that doubling the atmospheric CO2 would be needed to produce as much warming as whatever has been produced during the last century, and it would take a big increase in human-produced CO2 emissions to get anywhere near a doubling, since the human-produced percentage is currently only about 1/40. Thus there are people who recommend increasing human CO2 production.

But I think everyone gets my meaning except, maybe, the myth-worshippers. Nobody wants to purposely trash the planet to the extinction of life because of greed or whatnot. And certainly nobody in the Objectivist and libertarian world wants to make the earth uninhabitable for humans and other life forms.

But I hope they keep telling the story that we do since the public knows this is bullshit by now.

I speak for myself and I know I speak for many when I say the government--especially when allied to crony businesses--is the LAST organization on earth that should be entrusted to deal with this issue.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

(And let's not forget that the models' predictions actually HAVE panned out.)

It's impossible to forget something which wasn't ever in one's thoughts.

Ellen

And you once again fail to back up anything you say with any sort of evidence whatsoever. (and I'm supposedly the religious fanatic...)

If you'd properly done enough homework to form a reasoned viewpoint, you wouldn't have to be asking for the information you keep asking for.

Ellen

This reminds me of the whole theist schtick "The reason you can't see God is because you're not looking for him."

Come on Ellen, one little bit of evidence that supports your position? Just... one... bit... ?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Repost from the thread from which Michael picked up #228:

I may be the only one on the site that thinks that pumping increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea, but I'll see how that goes.

Jim,

Nobody I know of thinks doing that is a good idea.

(overview) We're in a CO2-deprived period. CO2 is good for plant growth. The re-radiance effect is logarithmic, meaning that doubling the atmospheric CO2 would be needed to produce as much warming as whatever has been produced during the last century, and it would take a big increase in human-produced CO2 emissions to get anywhere near a doubling, since the human-produced percentage is currently only about 1/40. Thus there are people who recommend increasing human CO2 production.

Ellen

Edit: I cross-posted with Michael's #230.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Bob,

To amend my last post, both you and Ellen mentioned that we actually might need more CO-2 in the atmosphere.

(overview) We're in a CO2-deprived period. CO2 is good for plant growth. The re-radiance effect is logarithmic, meaning that doubling the atmospheric CO2 would be needed to produce as much warming as whatever has been produced during the last century, and it would take a big increase in human-produced CO2 emissions to get anywhere near a doubling, since the human-produced percentage is currently only about 1/40. Thus there are people who recommend increasing human CO2 production.

But I think everyone gets my meaning except, maybe, the myth-worshippers. Nobody wants to purposely trash the planet to the extinction of life because of greed or whatnot. And certainly nobody in the Objectivist and libertarian world wants to make the earth uninhabitable for humans and other life forms.

But I hope they keep telling the story that we do since the public knows this is bullshit by now.

I speak for myself and I know I speak for many when I say the government--especially when allied to crony businesses--is the LAST organization on earth that should be entrusted to deal with this issue.

Michael

I never said that anyone wants to make the earth uninhabitable, just that we should not deny AGW.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I speak for myself and I know I speak for many when I say the government--especially when allied to crony businesses--is the LAST organization on earth that should be entrusted to deal with this issue.

In fact, I would need to read up on this, but I wager that ALL of the major pollution sources on earth come from the alliance of big corporations with government.

Sever that relationship and you will solve the problem of pollution in general.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I never said that anyone wants to make the earth uninhabitable, just that we should not deny AGW.

Well don't deny it.

Prove it and nobody will deny it.

But you haven't proven it.

Nobody has.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Come on Ellen, one little bit of evidence that supports your position? Just... one... bit... ?

You're the one making a positive claim, but with not one shred of "evidence" except the peer-review catechism. And you don't even know what my position is.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here comes Naomi's tongue sticking out with nyah nyah nyah.

But she hasn't really backed up any of her own claims to prove AGW exists.

All the body of evidence suggests with 100% certainty is that the climate changes.

Well, duh.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I never said that anyone wants to make the earth uninhabitable, just that we should not deny AGW.

Well don't deny it.

Prove it and nobody will deny it.

But you haven't proven it.

Nobody has.

Michael

Come on Ellen, one little bit of evidence that supports your position? Just... one... bit... ?

You're the one making a positive claim, but with not one shred of "evidence" except the peer-review catechism. And you don't even know what my position is.

Ellen

It's already been proven, and I've already pointed everyone to the book Global Physical Climatology by Dennis L. Hartmann for like the third time now.

Ellen,

You can't say that I have not given you any evidence if you choose to ignore it when I do. Your position is that the climate models have been retroactively fitted to the data, as you've said in at least two posts so far. And you have not actually supported the claim with any evidence

PS: Is your post #232 supposed to be a response to my post #231?

[Ellen Stuttle]

You're the one making a positive claim, but with not one shred of "evidence" except the peer-review catechism. And you don't even know what my position is.

Ellen

It's already been proven, and I've already pointed everyone to the book Global Physical Climatology by Dennis L. Hartmann for like the third time now.

That's actually incredible. Could you possibly believe that "it's already been proven"? Or are you outright lying?

And, oh, my, you've pointed everyone to one book! Gee-whizz. The books in this house on the subject would probably make about four stacks each 10 feet high. And then the articles would probably make four other comparable stacks. I am SO impressed that you've read one book. Not.

Ellen,

You can't say that I have not given you any evidence if you choose to ignore it when I do. Your position is that the climate models have been retroactively fitted to the data, as you've said in at least two posts so far. And you have not actually supported the claim with any evidence

I can say that you haven't given evidence because you haven't. My position is a great deal more than the climate-model fiddling. True, I haven't provided evidence of that. I've told you a person informed enough to state a positive opinion would already know about it.

PS: Is your post #232 supposed to be a response to my post #231?

Reading comprehension problem, too? (No, it isn't. Consult what the post says.)

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

All the body of evidence suggests with 100% certainty is that the climate changes.

Well, duh.

Michael

Yeah, climate changes; that's a big surprise! (I'm having a fun time laughing.)

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's already been proven, and I've already pointed everyone to the book Global Physical Climatology by Dennis L. Hartmann for like the third time now.

In a college textbook from 1994?

Gimme a break.

(Might as well present an affiliate Amazon link : Global Physical Climatology, Volume 56 (International Geophysics) by Dennis L. Hartmann. Anybody wanna plunk down 90 smackaroonies to see what the girl is talking about? )

I skimmed around about this book and it has a reputation of being a good presentation of many of the models used in calculating changes in climate, but nowhere have I read that this book proves AWG exists, despite the last section where he makes some doomsday affirmations about the future unless mankind mends its evil ways.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

You're the one making a positive claim, but with not one shred of "evidence" except the peer-review catechism. And you don't even know what my position is.

Ellen

It's already been proven, and I've already pointed everyone to the book Global Physical Climatology by Dennis L. Hartmann for like the third time now.

That's actually incredible. Could you possibly believe that "it's already been proven"? Or are you outright lying?

And, oh, my, you've pointed everyone to one book! Gee-whizz. The books in this house on the subject would probably make about four stacks each 10 feet high. And then the articles would probably make four other comparable stacks. I am SO impressed that you've read one book. Not.

Ellen,

You can't say that I have not given you any evidence if you choose to ignore it when I do. Your position is that the climate models have been retroactively fitted to the data, as you've said in at least two posts so far. And you have not actually supported the claim with any evidence

I can say that you haven't given evidence because you haven't. My position is a great deal more than the climate-model fiddling. True, I haven't provided evidence of that. I've told you a person informed enough to state a positive opinion would already know about it.

Seems you have a good-ole-fashion'd contradictarino going on there...

One whole textbook is still infinitely more than what you have, i.e., nothing.

You keep saying you're so informed, that you won't even bother supporting your position with any evidence. Unfortunately, the rest of us mere mortals don't have a special connection to the Divine like you do. So maybe you could enlighten us?

[SoAMadDeathWish]

It's already been proven, and I've already pointed everyone to the book Global Physical Climatology by Dennis L. Hartmann for like the third time now.

In a college textbook from 1994?

Gimme a break.

(Might as well present an affiliate Amazon link : Global Physical Climatology, Volume 56 (International Geophysics) by Dennis L. Hartmann. Anybody wanna plunk down 90 smackaroonies to see what the girl is talking about? )

I skimmed around about this book and it has a reputation of being a good presentation of many of the models used in calculating changes in climate, but nowhere have I read that this book proves AWG exists, despite the last section where he makes some doomsday affirmations about the future unless mankind mends its evil ways.

Michael

Yes, that book. The climate models themselves and the data and arguments that the author presents is the proof of AGW.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, that book. The climate models themselves and the data and arguments that the author presents is the proof of AGW.

No it doesn't.

So there, woman of faith.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Yes, that book. The climate models themselves and the data and arguments that the author presents is the proof of AGW.

No it doesn't.

So there, woman of faith.

Michael

Umm yeah, actually it does. This book is a summary of a vast amount of climate research. If you disagree with it, then you have to give your reasons and evidence for disagreeing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This book is a summary of a vast amount of climate research. If you disagree with it, then you have to give your reasons and evidence for disagreeing.

No I don't.

I just have to prompt you into saying this is your Holy Book.

And you said it.

The reader takes it from there.

And you still haven't proven AWG exists.

MIchael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm starting to skim around about Dennis Hartmann just for curiosity and he seems quite a figure.

Here is a recent panel (2013) he participated in:

"HUMANS ARE DOMINANT CAUSE OF CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM": IPCC SCIENTISTS IN CLIMATE WEEK NYC LIVESTREAM

There's a video at that link, but I'm not going to watch it. (I'm not eternal and have no interest in trying to "win" an argument, whatever the hell that would mean, against a petulant little girl on a forum.)

Just skimming over the language at that page sends up massive warning signals to my antenna that there is a religious fanatic in the house--meaning Hartmann himself, but also his peers.

His approach on skimming looks like a conclusion in search of theories and arguments.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a cute article in Nature I just came across:

Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

Jeff Tollefson

Nature

15 January 2014

I won't even quote since I only skimmed this thing and have no interest in hair-splitting over this fact or that presented in the article. Leave it to say that more and more scientists themselves are doubting the models because of the failed predictions. Also, the skeptics are having a ball with this and the AWG scientists are scrambling for the "real" answers.

Where did the heat go?

That is the question.

This reminds me of George Bush's weapons of mass destruction.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Here's a cute article in Nature I just came across:

Climate change: The case of the missing heat

Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

Jeff Tollefson

Nature

15 January 2014

I won't even quote since I only skimmed this thing and have no interest in hair-splitting over this fact or that presented in the article. Leave it to say that more and more scientists themselves are doubting the models because of the failed predictions. Also, the skeptics are having a ball with this and the AWG scientists are scrambling for the "real" answers.

Where did the heat go?

That is the question.

This reminds me of George Bush's weapons of mass destruction.

Michael

Nothing presented in this article suggests that AGW isn't happening. If there is any disagreement among the actual scientists it's about how much the average temperatures will rise over time.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Seems you have a good-ole-fashion'd contradictarino going on there...

Not at all. You have made the claim that AGW has been proven.

(A definition reminder. Upon my saying, "I'm taking you to mean the idea that human-produced CO2 is having a 'disruptive' to 'catastrophic' effect on climate dynamics," you replied, in post #183, "That is what I mean.")

You've provided nothing in support of the claim but the (reported) say-so of persons whom you consider to be authorities. You've tried to argue that you're being rational in considering these persons authorities. But unless I've missed it, you haven't even provided any specifics of what these persons state to be the case, or any arguments which they give.

So all you have is, "I'm telling you it's so." And then you say that others have to disprove a case you haven't presented.

I on the other hand have not told you to disprove what I've said about the models, only that your unawareness of the problems with the models indicates to me that you haven't explored the subject matter enough to be entitled to say that you have an informed opinion.

One whole textbook is still infinitely more than what you have, i.e., nothing.

Again, unless, I've missed it, you haven't even said what's in the textbook, just, in essence, "here, this answers everything; read it."

Was the textbook used in a college course you took?

Ellen