Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[creekster]

The French foreign minister tells us that we only have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. There can only be three possible conclusions here: 1) The French foreign minister was speaking English and had no idea what he was saying; 2) He knew exactly what he was saying and he was engaging in the same hysterical nonsense that global warming alarmists are known to frequently spew, meanwhile being curiously indifferent as to whether their prediction will actually be right or not; or 3) He's right and we're heading for a downward spiral right around the end of September of next year. Mark your calendars around September 25th or so.

Shockingly, Mr. Fabius didn't have anything to say about how to actually avoid the climate chaos and put a complete halt to all CO2 emissions. He seemed to only be interested in pointing out the 500 day thing. Hopefully there's a follow up story regarding how much environmentalist tail he scored at the various cocktail parties he attends this week while in DC. That 500 day comment probably got him a lot of points.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remar.../05/226015.htm

He's just trying to publicize a French conference on global warming that takes place in just over 500 days.

Must solve it now! Then we can all fly first class to Paris and celebrate our solution over a nice meal! Its the French way.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

He's just trying to publicize a French conference on global warming that takes place in just over 500 days.

Must solve it now! Then we can all fly first class to Paris and celebrate our solution over a nice meal! Its the French way.

I'm not sure where Occam's razor comes down on this. On one hand, John Kerry said that the guy speaks perfect English. That strongly leads me to conclude that the conclusion is in fact the first one -- the poor Frenchman didn't know what he was saying in a foreign tongue. On the other hand. the lure of being a prize dinner guest in DC over the next week because of that 500 day theory would be pretty tempting.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure the world isn't going to start to end in 500 days, I'm not inclined to believe the Frenchman on that count.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well, then you get this quote from the article....



Which brings me back to my first point (that woot hated with a passion) which is that one of the biggest problems with this whole discussion is that some on the climate change side are making crazy predictions with weather, which predictions really have no scientific basis and are, for the most part, just scare tactics. If hurricanes were more forceful over that span of 2,400 years, prior to any man-made global warming, then why would we expect them to be more frequent or more powerful today? That's what turns off people like me from the whole discussion. I don't deny the earth is warming, I just laugh at the apocalyptic predictions of the current day Noahs.

You are making a fundamental (yet sadly common) logic error. You are arguing that because nature can cause extreme cycles, the scientists couldn't possibly be right when they say that humans can impact the climate. That is like arguing that we should use nuclear weapons routinely because asteroids have historically done far greater damage.

You are also assuming that this little snippet of information somehow went over the heads of all of the scientists who were too dumb to factor that into the analysis. This is a common tactic of the anti-science crowd and shows you really are grossly ignorant of how science works (sorry creekster - but it's true in this case).

[pelagius]

This is a common tactic of the anti-science crowd and shows you really are grossly ignorant of how science works (sorry creekster - but it's true in this case).

But I'm also pretty sure anyone who has every relied on Excel for any kind of data analysis has offended the science gods so greatly that they are not allowed to even talk about science and that act alone is, of course, greatly anti-science (The Never Even Once Club).

[Pelado]

You are making a fundamental (yet sadly common) logic error. You are arguing that because nature can cause extreme cycles, the scientists couldn't possibly be right when they say that humans can impact the climate. That is like arguing that we should use nuclear weapons routinely because asteroids have historically done far greater damage.

You are also assuming that this little snippet of information somehow went over the heads of all of the scientists who were too dumb to factor that into the analysis. This is a common tactic of the anti-science crowd and shows you really are grossly ignorant of how science works (sorry creekster - but it's true in this case).

How did you get that from this?

Well, then you get this quote from the article....



Which brings me back to my first point (that woot hated with a passion) which is that one of the biggest problems with this whole discussion is that some on the climate change side are making crazy predictions with weather, which predictions really have no scientific basis and are, for the most part, just scare tactics. If hurricanes were more forceful over that span of 2,400 years, prior to any man-made global warming, then why would we expect them to be more frequent or more powerful today? That's what turns off people like me from the whole discussion. I don't deny the earth is warming, I just laugh at the apocalyptic predictions of the current day Noahs.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You are making a fundamental (yet sadly common) logic error. You are arguing that because nature can cause extreme cycles, the scientists couldn't possibly be right when they say that humans can impact the climate. That is like arguing that we should use nuclear weapons routinely because asteroids have historically done far greater damage.

You are also assuming that this little snippet of information somehow went over the heads of all of the scientists who were too dumb to factor that into the analysis. This is a common tactic of the anti-science crowd and shows you really are grossly ignorant of how science works (sorry creekster - but it's true in this case).

It seems like they've neglected a shitload of factors while setting up their models, why not add another one to the pile. Rather than admit that there's a lot of trial and error and they don't understand the particulars, they call those questioning their 98% failure rate a bunch of cavedwellers. Few things are more certain, death, taxes, failure in an attempt at a threesome with Natalie Imbruglia and Charlize Theron (I bet Kravitz could have pulled this off in 1999, there's that miniscule success rate after all) and a climate model being hilariously wrong.

Meanwhile the French foreign minister can tell us the world is ending in 500 days because of global warming and he'll probably be getting a relentless knob-polishing the remainder of his time in DC (it's the French way). You'll have to excuse our skepticism about whether these guys really know what's going on, it's obviously way out of line and we'll realize it once the Cormac McCarthy novel starts unfolding in real time.

[imanihonjin]

You are making a fundamental (yet sadly common) logic error. You are arguing that because nature can cause extreme cycles, the scientists couldn't possibly be right when they say that humans can impact the climate. That is like arguing that we should use nuclear weapons routinely because asteroids have historically done far greater damage.

You are also assuming that this little snippet of information somehow went over the heads of all of the scientists who were too dumb to factor that into the analysis. This is a common tactic of the anti-science crowd and shows you really are grossly ignorant of how science works (sorry creekster - but it's true in this case).

Says the guy who equals correlation with causation.

[Moliere]

How did you get that from this?

Yeah, either JL and woot are just totally misreading me or I'm just bad at explaining myself. It's probably both but moreso the latter.

I just love all the crazy predictions. Global warming. No wait, climate change. Higher frequency of storms. No wait, same frequency of storms but higher ferocity. 100 years until doomsday. No wait, 500 days until the moon turns to blood.

The science is settled that the earth is warming and it's pretty much settled humans are causing some of that....but no one seems to have a clue as to what that means to the earth in general other than....warmer temperatures. Hell, the increased CO2 could result in more abundant plant growth and thus a cure for world hunger

[Katy Lied]

I bet Kravitz could have pulled this off in 1999,

Totally, until they saw the fingernail sticking out of his belly button.
lenny-kravitz-tattoos.jpg

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Totally, until they saw the fingernail sticking out of his belly button.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4271[/ATTACH]

Kravitz already completed half the equation with Imbruglia, which I found quite impressive because she was so astonishingly hot in 98-99.

BTW, my 3 year old has an outtie. When the doctor asked me cut the cord, my initial thought to myself was "uh, doc, don't you think that's a little ways out there? let's make that clamp and cut a little bit closer" along with "it probably doesn't make a difference so don't say anything." Oh, it makes a difference and she has quite the outtie to prove it.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Yeah, either JL and woot are just totally misreading me or I'm just bad at explaining myself. It's probably both but moreso the latter.

I just love all the crazy predictions. Global warming. No wait, climate change. Higher frequency of storms. No wait, same frequency of storms but higher ferocity. 100 years until doomsday. No wait, 500 days until the moon turns to blood.

The science is settled that the earth is warming and it's pretty much settled humans are causing some of that....but no one seems to have a clue as to what that means to the earth in general other than....warmer temperatures. Hell, the increased CO2 could result in more abundant plant growth and thus a cure for world hunger

Not if the anti-GMO crowd has anything to say about it, and I can guaran-ass-tee you they're all completely on board with the global warming train. If one talks about an anti-science crowd, that's a good place to start.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...-a-deficiency/

BTW, there was some lefty columnist on buzzfeed who wrote a column a couple months ago about imprisoning climate skeptics because it was akin to shouting fire in crowded theater. For some reason he didn't have anything to say about the anti-GMO people. I wonder why. It must not score quite as many points as going after climate skeptics who have no effect on CO2 emissions.

[SeattleUte]

As much as I can recall, the portion of the population that doesn't believe in global warming is increasing not decreasing.

The collective wisdom of human beings in a free country ought to count for something. Just an observation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

But I'm also pretty sure anyone who has every relied on Excel for any kind of data analysis has offended the science gods so greatly that they are not allowed to even talk about science and that act alone is, of course, greatly anti-science (The Never Even Once Club).

Ha! Two oblique CS references in one post. Nicely done.

But you are wrong about Moliere being a first-timer. He has a long track record. But he has nothing to fear about being silenced. I only arbitrarily ban people for posting GoT spoilers, not for saying dumb stuff about science.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It seems like they've neglected a shitload of factors while setting up their models, why not add another one to the pile. Rather than admit that there's a lot of trial and error and they don't understand the particulars, they call those questioning their 98% failure rate a bunch of cavedwellers. Few things are more certain, death, taxes, failure in an attempt at a threesome with Natalie Imbruglia and Charlize Theron (I bet Kravitz could have pulled this off in 1999, there's that miniscule success rate after all) and a climate model being hilariously wrong.

Meanwhile the French foreign minister can tell us the world is ending in 500 days because of global warming and he'll probably be getting a relentless knob-polishing the remainder of his time in DC (it's the French way). You'll have to excuse our skepticism about whether these guys really know what's going on, it's obviously way out of line and we'll realize it once the Cormac McCarthy novel starts unfolding in real time.

Keep posting these anecdotes about politicians saying stupid things. They have nothing to do with the underlying science, but they are funny.

[Jeff Lebowski]

By the way, this issue of extreme weather events is interesting, but it is not one of the core evidences of global warming. The foundation for climate change theory is the dramatic increases in greenhouse gases and the very simple relationship between those gases and temperature. Climate models predict that as temps start to rise, extreme weather events will gradually become more frequent. So a recent uptick in these weather events by itself does not prove anything (could be random fluctuation) but it is consistent with climate change, so you throw it on the pile with hundreds of other similar types of secondary evidence.