Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[byu71]

Setting aside Dr. Moore's denial that humans are affecting the earth's climate, I'm interested in your take on these comments. To me, this is the heart of the issue, and this thread is a microcosm of the problem with the national debate on the issue. People become polarized into two camps: Chicken Littles and Ostriches. The radical Chicken Littles categorize everyone who doesn't want to take drastic measures to reduce CO2 levels as Ostriches who are ignorant science deniers, while the radical deniers categorize anyone who believes humans are causing the earth to warm and want to address the issue in some way as radical left-wing crazy Chicken Littles.

Unfortunately, both sides want to get caught up in arguing whether the climate is changing and humans are contributing to the change by emitting huge amounts of C02. The radicals either want to deny and ignore climate change completely or take drastic measures to stop it. Neither position seems wise or realistic. There is huge money to be made (or protected) on both sides. Oil and coal companies get accused of distorting the argument to save their industries, but there is just as much money pushing the other side from companies who stand to make huge fortunes if green initiatives are forced on us.

I think we should stop debating whether climate change is occurring, or even if there is anything we can do to stop it. Just as it's time for the Ostriches to admit that humans are affecting the climate, it's probably time for the Chicken Littles to admit there is nothing we can do to stop the Earth from warming.

In my opinion, we need to start discussing how we can adapt to a warmer world, and at the same time we need to invest in research that develops cost-effective technology that reduces our impact on the climate. Forcing a reduction in fossil fuel use through taxation or regulation is neither effective nor productive, in my opinion, especially if it is only going to be a voluntary initiative by country. This approach simply provides countries like India and China to burn more fossil fuels as our consumption decreases and supply increases.

The thing to remember about science is that it is very good at explaining, but not nearly as good at forecasting. The more variables in play, the less reliable the forecast. What we need from science at the moment, is a range of possible effects from a warming planet, including probabilities, and we need politicians and others to stop speaking of the future in absolutes. I've built a business on forecasting, and the one thing I guarantee people is that any specific forecast will be wrong. Conversely, I emphasize possible outcomes and stress the need to be prepared to minimize the adverse effect of the likely outcomes. This is the approach I personally would like to see, but I think our current political climate and the money behind both sides will not allow such a reasonable approach.

I am certainly open to what seems reasonable that will allow man to continue to progress economically and yet stem harm we are doing.

I think a lot of good things have been done. Increase in gas mileage, reasonable restraints on the coal and oil industries, etc.

However, as you indicated the doomsday scenario makes me tend to just think the whole thing is way overblown. Just like Hannity and Obama. Everything is bad about Obama. Being that way kills his credibility for me. All the terrible forecasts kills the credibility for the climate change zealots.

Besides, man is part of the evolutionary process. If some poor snail is in the way of developing damns, canals, etc. to store and help the water situation in California. Well tough shit for that snail. The Dinosaurs went extinct. I don't think it is my responsibility to make sure creatures who are in the way of progress take priority.

I feel basically the same about humans. If I am in a rest home on respirators and have no quality of life. Don't even know who I am, pull the plug. Why should we spend money keeping me in that state?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Setting aside Dr. Moore's denial that humans are affecting the earth's climate, I'm interested in your take on these comments. To me, this is the heart of the issue, and this thread is a microcosm of the problem with the national debate on the issue. People become polarized into two camps: Chicken Littles and Ostriches. The radical Chicken Littles categorize everyone who doesn't want to take drastic measures to reduce CO2 levels as Ostriches who are ignorant science deniers, while the radical deniers categorize anyone who believes humans are causing the earth to warm and want to address the issue in some way as radical left-wing crazy Chicken Littles.

Unfortunately, both sides want to get caught up in arguing whether the climate is changing and humans are contributing to the change by emitting huge amounts of C02. The radicals either want to deny and ignore climate change completely or take drastic measures to stop it. Neither position seems wise or realistic. There is huge money to be made (or protected) on both sides. Oil and coal companies get accused of distorting the argument to save their industries, but there is just as much money pushing the other side from companies who stand to make huge fortunes if green initiatives are forced on us.

I suppose you could argue that the policy debate is polarized like that. The scientific debate is not.

I am also highly skeptical that there is a massively funded "green industry" out there trying to make money from this. Sounds like a Fox News boogey man.

I think we should stop debating whether climate change is occurring, or even if there is anything we can do to stop it. Just as it's time for the Ostriches to admit that humans are affecting the climate, it's probably time for the Chicken Littles to admit there is nothing we can do to stop the Earth from warming.

In my opinion, we need to start discussing how we can adapt to a warmer world, and at the same time we need to invest in research that develops cost-effective technology that reduces our impact on the climate. Forcing a reduction in fossil fuel use through taxation or regulation is neither effective nor productive, in my opinion, especially if it is only going to be a voluntary initiative by country. This approach simply provides countries like India and China to burn more fossil fuels as our consumption decreases and supply increases.

Mostly agree with this.

Yes it is true that even if we cut off greenhouse gases 100%, the earth will continue to warm substantially due to current gas levels. It is also true that we do not currently have the technology to solve the problem. But we certainly could invest in developing the technology and we could make efforts that would make a substantial difference, even without completely solving the problem. The difficulty is that the investments we make would primarily benefit future generations, not ours. It is extraordinarily difficult to get people to make that kind of sacrifice or even to agree on what should be done.

If I had to guess, I predict that we will not have the collective will to make any changes or investments until the impact of climate change is so overwhelming and so dramatic that even anti-science dudes like topper, BYU71 and CMBF will give in. But that may take 50 years.

The thing to remember about science is that it is very good at explaining, but not nearly as good at forecasting. The more variables in play, the less reliable the forecast. What we need from science at the moment, is a range of possible effects from a warming planet, including probabilities, and we need politicians and others to stop speaking of the future in absolutes. I've built a business on forecasting, and the one thing I guarantee people is that any specific forecast will be wrong. Conversely, I emphasize possible outcomes and stress the need to be prepared to minimize the adverse effect of the likely outcomes. This is the approach I personally would like to see, but I think our current political climate and the money behind both sides will not allow such a reasonable approach.

I am not sure what you are talking about. There isn't a reputable climate scientist out there providing a single answer. They are all engaged in probabilistic analyses involving ensembles.

[byu71]

I am not sure what you are talking about. There isn't a reputable climate scientist out there providing a single answer. They are all engaged in probabilistic analyses involving ensembles.

Are they all supportive of the things people like Gore, Obama, Pelosi, Streisand, etc. are proposing?

As far as being anti-science. I just don't believe science is infallible. Heck when most scientists thought the earth's crust didn't move, I was skeptical and I was right.

To spend billions of dollars and maybe bankrupt nations and economies based on a general consensus that the climate is changing just doesn't seem sensible to me.

I am quite content though with the thought that someone like you would think it sensible.

[old_gregg]

I think we should stop debating whether climate change is occurring, or even if there is anything we can do to stop it. Just as it's time for the Ostriches to admit that humans are affecting the climate, it's probably time for the Chicken Littles to admit there is nothing we can do to stop the Earth from warming. . . . [A]nd at the same time we need to invest in research that develops cost-effective technology that reduces our impact on the climate.

your position is generally reasonable (and probably in line with scientific consensus), but this is inconsistent. just because anthropogenic climate change has in some respects caused irreversible change doesn't mean we shouldn't slow the rate at which that change occurs. i think you realize that. the inevitability of some degree climate change is not a reason to ignore what we can do to slow it.

[Bo Diddley]

Setting aside Dr. Moore's denial that humans are affecting the earth's climate, I'm interested in your take on these comments. To me, this is the heart of the issue, and this thread is a microcosm of the problem with the national debate on the issue. People become polarized into two camps: Chicken Littles and Ostriches. The radical Chicken Littles categorize everyone who doesn't want to take drastic measures to reduce CO2 levels as Ostriches who are ignorant science deniers, while the radical deniers categorize anyone who believes humans are causing the earth to warm and want to address the issue in some way as radical left-wing crazy Chicken Littles.

Unfortunately, both sides want to get caught up in arguing whether the climate is changing and humans are contributing to the change by emitting huge amounts of C02. The radicals either want to deny and ignore climate change completely or take drastic measures to stop it. Neither position seems wise or realistic. There is huge money to be made (or protected) on both sides. Oil and coal companies get accused of distorting the argument to save their industries, but there is just as much money pushing the other side from companies who stand to make huge fortunes if green initiatives are forced on us.

I think we should stop debating whether climate change is occurring, or even if there is anything we can do to stop it. Just as it's time for the Ostriches to admit that humans are affecting the climate, it's probably time for the Chicken Littles to admit there is nothing we can do to stop the Earth from warming.

In my opinion, we need to start discussing how we can adapt to a warmer world, and at the same time we need to invest in research that develops cost-effective technology that reduces our impact on the climate. Forcing a reduction in fossil fuel use through taxation or regulation is neither effective nor productive, in my opinion, especially if it is only going to be a voluntary initiative by country. This approach simply provides countries like India and China to burn more fossil fuels as our consumption decreases and supply increases.

The thing to remember about science is that it is very good at explaining, but not nearly as good at forecasting. The more variables in play, the less reliable the forecast. What we need from science at the moment, is a range of possible effects from a warming planet, including probabilities, and we need politicians and others to stop speaking of the future in absolutes. I've built a business on forecasting, and the one thing I guarantee people is that any specific forecast will be wrong. Conversely, I emphasize possible outcomes and stress the need to be prepared to minimize the adverse effect of the likely outcomes. This is the approach I personally would like to see, but I think our current political climate and the money behind both sides will not allow such a reasonable approach.

Subterfuge! How convenient that you don't even mention all the emissions your cows are putting out. They're the real danger.

[TripletDaddy]

I am certainly open to what seems reasonable that will allow man to continue to progress economically and yet stem harm we are doing.

I think a lot of good things have been done. Increase in gas mileage, reasonable restraints on the coal and oil industries, etc.

However, as you indicated the doomsday scenario makes me tend to just think the whole thing is way overblown. Just like Hannity and Obama. Everything is bad about Obama. Being that way kills his credibility for me. All the terrible forecasts kills the credibility for the climate change zealots.

Besides, man is part of the evolutionary process. If some poor snail is in the way of developing damns, canals, etc. to store and help the water situation in California. Well tough shit for that snail. The Dinosaurs went extinct. I don't think it is my responsibility to make sure creatures who are in the way of progress take priority.

I feel basically the same about humans. If I am in a rest home on respirators and have no quality of life. Don't even know who I am, pull the plug. Why should we spend money keeping me in that state?

good post.

[byu71]

good post.

I know, thanks.

[creekster]

your position is generally reasonable (and probably in line with scientific consensus), but this is inconsistent. just because anthropogenic climate change has in some respects caused irreversible change doesn't mean we shouldn't slow the rate at which that change occurs. i think you realize that. the inevitability of some degree climate change is not a reason to ignore what we can do to slow it.

You seem to assume it's a linear response. I'm not sure the evidence supports that.

[old_gregg]

linear response

not sure what you mean by this

[cowboy]

I suppose you could argue that the policy debate is polarized like that. The scientific debate is not.

I am also highly skeptical that there is a massively funded "green industry" out there trying to make money from this. Sounds like a Fox News boogey man.

I don't watch much Fox News and I don't recall them making claims of big money behind the green industry. I also don't believe it's necessarily a coordinated effort, but there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for some companies who will profit from the green regulations and initiatives. GE alone stands to make billions by selling electric turbines for wind farms. Also, Warren Buffet is making off like a bandit from the blockage of the Keystone Pipeline because his rail is the only way to transport some of that oil at the moment. Regulation does nothing more than pick winners in the marketplace.

I am not sure what you are talking about. There isn't a reputable climate scientist out there providing a single answer. They are all engaged in probabilistic analyses involving ensembles.

I'm talking about the public debate. I haven't followed much of the research in depth, and I'm not claiming scientists are making single predictions, but scientists need to be clear that there are a wide range of possible outcomes from global warming. Otherwise, people on both sides of the debate will cherry pick one possibility, call it a prediction, and use it to make whatever point they are trying to make. This does nobody any good, and certainly isn't productive in making progress toward dealing with the effects of climate change.

[cowboy]

your position is generally reasonable (and probably in line with scientific consensus), but this is inconsistent. just because anthropogenic climate change has in some respects caused irreversible change doesn't mean we shouldn't slow the rate at which that change occurs. i think you realize that. the inevitability of some degree climate change is not a reason to ignore what we can do to slow it.

I'm confused about why you consider my statement inconsistent. I said there is nothing we can do to stop the earth from warming, which I think is pretty much a given in the scientific community. Then I said we need to invest in technology that will reduce our impact, which I believe would result in slowing the rate of global warming. How did you interpret that as me advocating ignoring what we can do to slow climate change?

[creekster]

not sure what you mean by this

It appeared you are assuming there is a one to k e relationship between diminished anthropogenic CO2 output and extent of climate change. I do not think that linear relationship has been established.

[Shaka]

I don't watch much Fox News and I don't recall them making claims of big money behind the green industry. I also don't believe it's necessarily a coordinated effort, but there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for some companies who will profit from the green regulations and initiatives. GE alone stands to make billions by selling electric turbines for wind farms. Also, Warren Buffet is making off like a bandit from the blockage of the Keystone Pipeline because his rail is the only way to transport some of that oil at the moment. Regulation does nothing more than pick winners in the marketplace.



I'm talking about the public debate. I haven't followed much of the research in depth, and I'm not claiming scientists are making single predictions, but scientists need to be clear that there are a wide range of possible outcomes from global warming. Otherwise, people on both sides of the debate will cherry pick one possibility, call it a prediction, and use it to make whatever point they are trying to make. This does nobody any good, and certainly isn't productive in making progress toward dealing with the effects of climate change.

Al Gore makes this point for you with his Generation Investment Management. My father taught me that when trying to find truth follow the money. Al Gore has put himself in the position to make billions based on climate change.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You seem to assume it's a linear response. I'm not sure the evidence supports that.

You lost me too. I can't see anything in that post that implies a linear response.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't watch much Fox News and I don't recall them making claims of big money behind the green industry. I also don't believe it's necessarily a coordinated effort, but there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for some companies who will profit from the green regulations and initiatives. GE alone stands to make billions by selling electric turbines for wind farms. Also, Warren Buffet is making off like a bandit from the blockage of the Keystone Pipeline because his rail is the only way to transport some of that oil at the moment. Regulation does nothing more than pick winners in the marketplace.

Sure there is a way to make money. Also some industries that stand to lose money.

FTR, I don't think either industry has had that big of an impact on the debate. There are bigger issues driving public opinion.

I'm talking about the public debate. I haven't followed much of the research in depth, and I'm not claiming scientists are making single predictions, but scientists need to be clear that there are a wide range of possible outcomes from global warming. Otherwise, people on both sides of the debate will cherry pick one possibility, call it a prediction, and use it to make whatever point they are trying to make. This does nobody any good, and certainly isn't productive in making progress toward dealing with the effects of climate change.

That is sort of what you said.

The thing to remember about science is that it is very good at explaining, but not nearly as good at forecasting. The more variables in play, the less reliable the forecast. What we need from science at the moment, is a range of possible effects from a warming planet, including probabilities, and we need politicians and others to stop speaking of the future in absolutes. I've built a business on forecasting, and the one thing I guarantee people is that any specific forecast will be wrong. Conversely, I emphasize possible outcomes and stress the need to be prepared to minimize the adverse effect of the likely outcomes. This is the approach I personally would like to see, but I think our current political climate and the money behind both sides will not allow such a reasonable approach.

That is precisely what the scientists are providing.