Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change

LooseGoose wrote:

xsanguine wrote:I dunno. I don't think the Trump experts and the science experts is really an apples to apples comparison. I see what they're saying and I'm certainly aware of the issues surrounding financing with regards to peer reviewed type stuff... but it's difficult to interpret the data in a way that doesn't suggest we're fucking some shit up long term.

I also admit that I'm all for a cleaner earth as it is... so I'm not threatened by the prospect of cleaner fuels being developed or national forests extended over abandoned property or foreclosures. I realize the problem other suggested band aids creates some industries, though.

Pollution control and the Climate change hysteria are two wildly different animals that people here are conflating.  It's just not the same, not even close.

LooseGoose wrote:X or Steve or anyone else looking for reading....

Here's the lady that runs the blog - her bonafides if you will. If you've followed the climate debate closely you should already know her name.

Judith Curry

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster"[2] in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem."[3] Curry also hosts a popular science blog in which she writes on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.[4]

Her Blog -- Climate, Etc

And the specific post to read for today....

Climate Heretic: to be or not to be?

If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side. Then skeptics provide links to credible-sounding articles that say the science is bunk, and why. How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?

You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?

Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong.

It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Here is another classic example of Goose strawmanning the shit out of a thread. It was about why is Trump even entertaining Gores on this issue. Goose goes ahead and bombarded this right off the bat with conversations that completely steers away from anything that questions Trump.

GRR Spartan wrote:Where does Judith Curry get her funding?

LooseGoose wrote:Enjoy convincing yourselves I'm a fool and all of you know that I'm wrong.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Here is another classic example of Goose strawmanning the shit out of a thread. It was about why is Trump even entertaining Gores on this issue. Goose goes ahead and bombarded this right off the bat with conversations that completely steers away from anything that questions Trump.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Here is another classic example of Goose strawmanning the shit out of a thread. It was about why is Trump even entertaining Gores on this issue. Goose goes ahead and bombarded this right off the bat with conversations that completely steers away from anything that questions Trump.

just remember that Goose doesn't like Trump, didn't vote for him.. nor does he support him.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
just remember that Goose doesn't like Trump, didn't vote for him.. nor does he support him.

I've been arguing the global warming shit with people for a decade, christ I can link you to threads on other boards going back that long. Well before Obama humiliated Trump into running for PResident. I know you'd like to tie them together but as is the case with 99% of your shit it's incorrect.

For example, when a major new Research Report came out back in September claiming to completely invalidate all of the bases on which EPA claims that CO2 is a danger to human health and welfare, and thus to undermine EPA's authority to regulate the gas under the Clean Air Act, EPA simply failed to respond. In the same vein, essentially all prominent global warming alarmists refuse to debate anyone who challenges any aspect of their orthodoxy. Well, that has worked as long as they and their allies have controlled all of the agencies and all of the money. Now, it will suddenly be put up or shut up. And in case you might think that the science on this issue is "settled," so no problem, you might enjoy this recent round-up at Climate Depot from some of the actual top scientists. A couple of excerpts:

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: 'I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side. ' . . .

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ – ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’

Now the backers of the global warming alarm will not only be called upon to debate, but will face the likelihood of being called before a highly skeptical if not hostile EPA to answer all of the hard questions that they have avoided answering for the last eight years. Questions like: Why are recorded temperatures, particularly from satellites and weather balloons, so much lower than the alarmist models had predicted? How do you explain an almost-20-year "pause" in increasing temperatures even as CO2 emissions have accelerated? What are the details of the adjustments to the surface temperature record that have somehow reduced recorded temperatures from the 1930s and 40s, and thereby enabled continued claims of "warmest year ever" when raw temperature data show warmer years 70 and 80 years ago? Suddenly, the usual hand-waving ("the science is settled") is not going to be good enough any more. What now?

And how will the United States fare on the international stage when it stops promising to cripple its economy with meaningless fossil fuel restrictions? As noted above, people like Isabel Hilton predict a combination of ostracism and "loss of leadership" of the issue, most likely to China. Here's my prediction: As soon as the United States stops parroting the global warming line, the other countries will quickly start backing away from it as well. This is "The Emperor's New Clothes," with the U.S. in the role of the little kid who is the only one willing to say the obvious truth in the face of mass hysteria. Countries like Britain and Australia have already more or less quietly started the retreat from insanity. In Germany the obsession with wind and solar (solar -- in the cloudiest country in the world!) has already gotten average consumer electric rates up to close to triple the cost in U.S. states that embrace fossil fuels. How long will they be willing to continue that self-destruction after the U.S. says it is not going along? And I love the business about ceding "leadership" to China. China's so-called "commitment" in the recent Paris accord is not to reduce carbon emissions at all, but rather only to build as many coal plants as they want for the next fourteen years and then cease increasing emissions after 2030! At which point, of course, they reserve their right to change their mind. Who exactly is going to embrace that "leadership" and increase their consumers' cost of electricity by triple or so starting right now? I mean, the Europeans are stupid, but are they that stupid?

LooseGoose wrote:The Impending Collapse Of The Global Warming Scare

For example, when a major new Research Report came out back in September claiming to completely invalidate all of the bases on which EPA claims that CO2 is a danger to human health and welfare, and thus to undermine EPA's authority to regulate the gas under the Clean Air Act, EPA simply failed to respond. In the same vein, essentially all prominent global warming alarmists refuse to debate anyone who challenges any aspect of their orthodoxy. Well, that has worked as long as they and their allies have controlled all of the agencies and all of the money. Now, it will suddenly be put up or shut up. And in case you might think that the science on this issue is "settled," so no problem, you might enjoy this recent round-up at Climate Depot from some of the actual top scientists. A couple of excerpts:

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: 'I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side. ' . . .

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ – ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’

Now the backers of the global warming alarm will not only be called upon to debate, but will face the likelihood of being called before a highly skeptical if not hostile EPA to answer all of the hard questions that they have avoided answering for the last eight years. Questions like: Why are recorded temperatures, particularly from satellites and weather balloons, so much lower than the alarmist models had predicted? How do you explain an almost-20-year "pause" in increasing temperatures even as CO2 emissions have accelerated? What are the details of the adjustments to the surface temperature record that have somehow reduced recorded temperatures from the 1930s and 40s, and thereby enabled continued claims of "warmest year ever" when raw temperature data show warmer years 70 and 80 years ago? Suddenly, the usual hand-waving ("the science is settled") is not going to be good enough any more. What now?

And how will the United States fare on the international stage when it stops promising to cripple its economy with meaningless fossil fuel restrictions? As noted above, people like Isabel Hilton predict a combination of ostracism and "loss of leadership" of the issue, most likely to China. Here's my prediction: As soon as the United States stops parroting the global warming line, the other countries will quickly start backing away from it as well. This is "The Emperor's New Clothes," with the U.S. in the role of the little kid who is the only one willing to say the obvious truth in the face of mass hysteria. Countries like Britain and Australia have already more or less quietly started the retreat from insanity. In Germany the obsession with wind and solar (solar -- in the cloudiest country in the world!) has already gotten average consumer electric rates up to close to triple the cost in U.S. states that embrace fossil fuels. How long will they be willing to continue that self-destruction after the U.S. says it is not going along? And I love the business about ceding "leadership" to China. China's so-called "commitment" in the recent Paris accord is not to reduce carbon emissions at all, but rather only to build as many coal plants as they want for the next fourteen years and then cease increasing emissions after 2030! At which point, of course, they reserve their right to change their mind. Who exactly is going to embrace that "leadership" and increase their consumers' cost of electricity by triple or so starting right now? I mean, the Europeans are stupid, but are they that stupid?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:The Impending Collapse Of The Global Warming Scare

ISo this from the 3% of scientists that don't believe in global warming?

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

ISo this from the 3% of scientists that don't believe in global warming?

You enjoy swallowing that bullshit, I'll enjoy laughing at the Millerites over the next decade.

Read this someday if you want facts not bullshit. Global warming consensus claim does not stand up (author's cut)

LooseGoose wrote:And I'd bet a quarter that neither of you read the article.   After all it's easier to stay firm in your beliefs if they remain unchallenged.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:And I'd bet a quarter that neither of you read the article.   After all it's easier to stay firm in your beliefs if they remain unchallenged.

You'd owe me one very ironic quarter.

In the world of climate science, the skeptics are coming in from the cold.

Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing.

“Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. blog.

William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is similarly optimistic. “I think we’re making progress,” Happer said. “I see reassuring signs.”

Despite harsh criticism of their contrarian views, a few scientists like Happer and Curry have pointed to evidence that global warming is less pronounced than predicted. They have also argued that this slighter warming would bring positive developments along with problems. For the first time in years, skeptics believe they can find a path out of the wilderness into which they’ve been cast by the “scientific consensus.” As much as they desire a more open-minded reception by their colleagues, they are hoping even more that the spigot of government research funding – which dwarfs all other sources – will trickle their way.

When asked if he would voice dissent on climate change if he were a younger, less established physicist, he said: “Oh, no, definitely not. I held my tongue for a long time because friends told me I would not be elected to the National Academy of Sciences if I didn’t toe the alarmists’ company line.”

That sharp disagreements are real in the field may come as a shock to many people, who are regularly informed that climate science is settled and those who question this orthodoxy are akin to Holocaust deniers. Nevertheless, new organizations like the CO2 Coalition, founded in 2015, suggest the debate is more evenly matched intellectually than is commonly portrayed. In addition to Happer, the CO2 Coalition’s initial members include scholars with ties to world-class institutions like MIT, Harvard and Rockefeller University. The coalition also features members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorology Society, along with policy experts from the Manhattan Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute and Tufts University’s Fletcher School.

With such voices joining in, the debate over global warming might shift. Until now, it’s normally portrayed as enlightened scholars vs. anti-science simpletons. A more open debate could shift the discussion to one about global warming’s extent and root causes.

Should a scientific and research funding realignment occur, it could do more than shatter what some see as an orthodoxy stifling free inquiry. Bjorn Lomborg, who has spent years analyzing potential solutions to global warming, believes that a more expansive outlook toward research is necessary because too much government funding has become expensive and ineffective corporate welfare. Although not a natural scientist, the social scientist Lomborg considers climate change real but not cataclysmic.

GRR Spartan wrote:Too bad the fish off the Atlantic seaboard aren't as well informed as our resident science skeptics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/science/fish-climate-change-northeast.html?hpw&rref=science&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

Cameron wrote:Quality bump, Goose. Worthwhile for sure.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:Quality bump, Goose. Worthwhile for sure.

lol.  It was just a reminder that it's been the hottest, etc for 150 years.