Did you help ruin the world?

[Furunculus]

I can't help but laugh at the alarmists who refuse to believe anyone or anything that contradicts their faith in man made global warming. It truly is a religion.

Now I haven't read the whole thread and so I don't know if this has been posted, but here's an excerpt of a Michael Crichton speech dealing with "consensus science":

CR

to add another example of false consensus i give you a howler from my own discipline:

50 years ago the consensus said that plate tectonics was a ridiculous notion that couldn't possibly be true!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

Geological paradigm shift

The acceptance of the theories of continental drift and sea floor spreading (the two key elements of plate tectonics) may be compared to the Copernican revolution in astronomy (see Nicolaus Copernicus). Within a matter of only several years geophysics and geology in particular were revolutionized. The parallel is striking: just as pre-Copernican astronomy was highly descriptive but still unable to provide explanations for the motions of celestial objects, pre-tectonic plate geological theories described what was observed but struggled to provide any fundamental mechanisms. The problem lay in the question "How?". Before acceptance of plate tectonics, geology in particular was trapped in a "pre-Copernican" box.

However, by comparison to astronomy the geological revolution was much more sudden. What had been rejected for decades by any respectable scientific journal was eagerly accepted within a few short years in the 1960s and 1970s. Any geological description before this had been highly descriptive. All the rocks were described and assorted reasons, sometimes in excruciating detail, were given for why they were where they are. The descriptions are still valid. The reasons, however, today sound much like pre-Copernican astronomy.

One simply has to read the pre-plate descriptions of why the Alps or Himalaya exist to see the difference. In an attempt to answer "how" questions like "How can rocks that are clearly marine in origin exist thousands of meters above sea-level in the Dolomites?", or "How did the convex and concave margins of the Alpine chain form?", any true insight was hidden by complexity that boiled down to technical jargon without much fundamental insight as to the underlying mechanics.

With plate tectonics answers quickly fell into place or a path to the answer became clear. Collisions of converging plates had the force to lift the sea floor to great heights. The cause of marine trenches oddly placed just off island arcs or continents and their associated volcanoes became clear when the processes of subduction at converging plates were understood.

Mysteries were no longer mysteries. Forests of complex and obtuse answers were swept away. Why were there striking parallels in the geology of parts of Africa and South America? Why did Africa and South America look strangely like two pieces that should fit to anyone having done a jigsaw puzzle? Look at some pre-tectonics explanations for complexity. For simplicity and one that explained a great deal more look at plate tectonics. A great rift, similar to the Great Rift Valley in northeastern Africa, had split apart a single continent, eventually forming the Atlantic Ocean, and the forces were still at work in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

[Furunculus]

maybe my prediction won't be too far off the mark:

the fact that it might be the coldest year in 15 years does not prove or disprove anything, however before another 15 years are up this may well be considered the year the tide started to turn against the catastrophic CO2 induced anthropgenic climate change alarmists.

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’, & Models ‘Useless’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...never-muzzled/

[HoreTore]

I can't help but laugh at the alarmists who refuse to believe anyone or anything that contradicts their faith in man made global warming. It truly is a religion.

So we agree that religion is bad?

[Furunculus]

religion has its place, but if an electrician rewires my house, or the global climate 'consensus' proposes spending a large portion of future world growth reducing atmospheric CO2, I don't want faith involved in the outcome.

[Fragony]

So we agree that religion is bad?

So we agree that global warmism is a religion?

[HoreTore]

So we agree that global warmism is a religion?

Unlike you Fragony, I honestly don't care.

[Fragony]

Unlike you Fragony, I honestly don't care.

I care about my money, not about what people believe, howl to the moon all you want but I don't want to be taxed for a hoax, simple as that. 175.000.000.000 euro a year on this nonsense in the EU alone, nobody knows what's done with it, all we know is that it's gone.

[HoreTore]

I care about my money, not about what people believe, howl to the moon all you want but I don't want to be taxed for a hoax, simple as that.

Well, as of now, I can't see any bad effects of the co2-stuff in place here. CO2 aside, there's a lot of great stuff done/in progress, all of which is good regardless of whether the world will end or not;

- More focus on renewable energy. This one is undeniably good, CO2 emissions or not. Oil won't last forever, the quicker we find something else, the better.
- Less CO2 also means less a lot of other things. An unfiltered factory pipe isn't just spewing out CO2, it's spewing out dozens of chemicals, etc. Almost none of them good.
- A focus on consuming less energy. Very good, and a money-saver. The less you spend, the more you have.
- Less individual driving. Also good. It would be bad if it reduced our mobility, but I can't honestly say that it has. Having more people drive the same vehicle(ie. bus or train) is undeniably more efficient than driving separately.

I can live with a couple of nonsense policies, as long as the majority are sound. And to me, the majority is very sound. So I don't really care either way.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why a small temperature span is preferable is quite simple. If you were living at the end of the latest ice age, then after it ended it a generally better climate than before. That is of course if you didn't live at the beach as the water level rose more than 100 meters.

Isn't the second line a kind of oxymyron? If our actions is to limit our own impact (who according to the sceptics are none), how would this have unintended consequences?

It's not an oxymoron at all, but simple fact. The environment is extraordinarily complex. We don't know what effect our actions are going to have. Some people might hypothesize, but they cannot foresee everything. So unless you're arguing that the climate change alarmists can predict with absolute certainty ever single event that will occur if we follow their advice, then of course there's going to be unintended consequences. And those might well be on the global scale that the alarmists want us to act on.

So we agree that religion is bad?

No - each must be judged individually. In this case it is bad because blind faith has no place in science.

CR

[Fragony]

I can live with a couple of nonsense policies, as long as the majority are sound. And to me, the majority is very sound. So I don't really care either way.

I can't, over here 99% (yes 99%) of all the extra revenues of the new taxes doesn't even go to the enviroment, it's robbery pure and simple just an excuse to up the taxes, it's damaging to our economy's.

[HoreTore]

I can't, over here 99% (yes 99%) of all the extra revenues of the new taxes doesn't even go to the enviroment, it's robbery pure and simple just an excuse to up the taxes, it's damaging to our economy's.

Wah-wah, baby's gotta pay his taxes wah-wah.


Pay your tax with pride!

[Furunculus]

Wah-wah, baby's gotta pay his taxes wah-wah.


Pay your tax with pride!

if there really isn't a problem with CO2 derived catastropic anthropogenic global warming then would it not be better to spend the money providing the third world with safe housing, sanitation and clean water, and probably still have a bundle left over to maintain infrastructure in your own country?

[HoreTore]

if there really isn't a problem with CO2 derived catastropic anthropogenic global warming then would it not be better to spend the money providing the third world with safe housing, sanitation and clean water, and probably still have a bundle left over to maintain infrastructure in your own country?

There certainly is an environmental disaster around. Reducing emissions(general, not just co2) is undoubtedly important, and not because of global warming, but because of smog, allergies, asthma, etc.

And you'll have to forgive me, but there's a small part of me doubting that Fragony will happily pay taxes to build houses in the 3rd world...

[Fragony]

Tbut there's a small part of me doubting that Fragony will happily pay taxes to build houses in the 3rd world...

I give about 200 euro a month to real charity. I support "Friends of Iran", who save people from the gallow, and a have adopted several African family's. My Moldavian adopted grannies have died by now, one of them never existed but hey.

[Furunculus]

There certainly is an environmental disaster around.

Reducing emissions(general, not just co2) is >>>undoubtedly<<< important................

And you'll have to forgive me, but there's a small part of me doubting that Fragony will happily pay taxes to build houses in the 3rd world...

Agreed, and we have been making perefectly good environmental legislation for 50+ years.

Surely the point is that there is a great deal of doubt of the warming potential of anthopogenic CO2.

Holland has aid programs just like most other developed countries, the point being they could have even more.

[Fragony]

Holland has aid programs just like most other developed countries, the point being they could have even more.

We have aid clubs, all the money goes to the stock market (I gave up 'War Child' when I learned they invest in clusterbombs) the surpluss minus the not uncommonly 400.000 saleries of several board-members goes straight into the pockets of the Mugabe's of the world, no I am not particulary pleased to pay for that.

[Ironside]

It's not an oxymoron at all, but simple fact. The environment is extraordinarily complex. We don't know what effect our actions are going to have. Some people might hypothesize, but they cannot foresee everything. So unless you're arguing that the climate change alarmists can predict with absolute certainty ever single event that will occur if we follow their advice, then of course there's going to be unintended consequences. And those might well be on the global scale that the alarmists want us to act on.

That's only applied to geoengineering and there I agree that's something that should be treated with very great care and I wouldn't support any large scale attemts in the next few decades. I do doubt it will be relevant before 2050 though and at that point the global warming alarmists should have been proven correct or wrong, making the issue completely different.

But to put it simple, if the extra CO2 doesn't have an inpact on the temperature then reducing it to pre-industrial levels (by some magical reason atm) should have no influence, agreed? If it has an influence and reducing it could have unforseen consequences, then it would be best to wait an see to gather more data, correct? Point is that wait and see is to shut down all industry tomorrow. That is the crux, we are running a gigantic experiment where we cannot forsee the consequences of.

And you go about warning that slowing it down can have unforseen consequences...

[CountArach]

No - each must be judged individually. In this case it is bad because blind faith has no place in science.

CR

Which is why Science has proven things

[lenin96]

I'm not American but I don't believe climate change is much, we nether hear the oppinions of climate change skeptics, it's always just hippies and their crap.

[CountArach]

I'm not American but I don't believe climate change is much, we nether hear the oppinions of climate change skeptics, it's always just hippies and their crap.

Yeah. Damn those scientists with their love-ins and refusing to get a real job.

[Lemur]

I think FDR's legacy, Bush's legacy, the Iraq War and global warming would all be resolved if we just outlaw abortion and establish a national ID card.

[lenin96]

Yeah. Damn those scientists with their love-ins and refusing to get a real job.

I still strongly support scientists, just not Al Gore and his daemonic hordes of supporters...

[CountArach]

I still strongly support scientists, just not Al Gore and his daemonic hordes of supporters...

What is it with Al Gore? Does the entire Right-wing of politics have a huge man-crush on him or something?

[Furunculus]

because for the son-of-kyoto to become national legislation, and then working regulation, and thus start sucking vast amounts of money it needs public acceptance.

what gore is managing to do (in my opinion), is bring public acceptance of the problem in advance of science confirming that anthropogenic CO2 is indeed the problem, by creating a faith in the public consciousness that the scientific world has already reached a consensus on what the problem is and therefore what direction to go in applying the solution.

this is dangerous because it will lock the world into a regulatory framework, at vast expense to the competitive advantage of my nation, which may not solve any pertinent problem.

cart before horse in short.

[CountArach]

this is dangerous because it will lock the world into a regulatory framework, at vast expense to the competitive advantage of my nation, which may not solve any useful problem.

Actually every nation will be bound to it. That is the very meaning of consensus decision making.

[Hooahguy]

What is it with Al Gore? Does the entire Right-wing of politics have a huge man-crush on him or something?

nah, we just love how his famous movie has so many holes in it.

[Furunculus]

Actually every nation will be bound to it. That is the very meaning of consensus decision making.

you kind of missing the point, which is that son-of-kyoto may well be the wrong response to a problem only poorly understood.

which is only more galling when you consider that it will be the rich countries that are expected to bear the brunt of this response.

ergo Britain will make itself poorer achieving no good end.

[HoreTore]

which is only more galling when you consider that it will be the rich countries that are expected to bear the brunt of this response.

Uh......

It would've been better if the poor countries took the hit...?

[Furunculus]

you are misunderstanding me.

if there is no world saving benefit then why should my country reduce its competitive advantage and hence its future wealth by instituting expensive measures that create no good?

[Furunculus]

All of the above discussion is a fantastic evasion of the most recent part of this debate, i.e. whither the consensus now?

Well, here is one more in the eye for the consensus:

Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...sting-climate/

Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]

What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia’s CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed.

In today’s statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis: