Discussion:
Scientists do not want climate change discussion
(too old to reply)
Chris Buckley
2017-05-01 15:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Scientists-Are-Calling-for-NY-Times-Boycott-Over-11107895.php

This is the sort of behavior by scientists that completely contradicts
what many in this group claim science should be - that you have
an open mind and look at the evidence and debate. These scientists
want to shut down all opposing views and not offer any forum for those
people who disagree with them - they are boycotting the NY Times,
canceling their subscriptions, and urging others to boycott the NY
Times because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.

These are leading climate change researchers (Mann is one who has canceled
his subscription) who are trying their best to eliminate all forums for views
contrary to their own. And there is no objection from the general scientific
community to them. Indeed, Mann has been trying to get rid of contrary forums
for decades and has been supported by the scientific community when attacked.

Look, I am a scientist by any reasonable definition. I have also believed
in man-made global warming for at least 20 years. But I have gotten called a
climate change denier because I object to what the highly visible climate
change advocates have been doing in shutting down all investigations
(and funding) that they don't agree with.

As others have said, this is not science, this is politics.

Chris
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-01 16:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
As others have said, this is not science, this is politics.
This wasn't newsworthy insight a decade ago. Or even two decades ago.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-05-01 17:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
These scientists
want to shut down all opposing views and not offer any forum for those
people who disagree with them
This is simply nonsense.

Science is indeed based on free discussion and open-mindedness. Free discussion among people qualified in the field, and an open-mindedness that does not embrace
nonsense purveyed by those who don't know what they're talking about.

Preventing the public from being misled by charlatans is indeed "political", but
it is simply the practice of civic responsibility by scientists.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-01 17:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Chris Buckley
These scientists
want to shut down all opposing views and not offer any forum
for those people who disagree with them
This is simply nonsense.
It is nonsense that those who call themselves scientists clearly do
not know what science is, and do - literally - everything in their
power to silence dissent. The proof that they are basically a
religious cult is in their behavior: they refuse to even acknowledge
when someone points out the futility of continue to do the same
thing, in the same way, and expecting different results. Perhaps
they're used to doing the same thing over and over until they get the
results they want. But that's a characteristic of political
propaganda, not science.
Post by Quadibloc
Science is indeed based on free discussion and open-mindedness.
Indeed. That's why the people being referred to are not scientists,
and do not do science.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-05-01 17:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.
The New York Times is a newspaper with a very good reputation.

So publishing such an editorial gives undeserved credibility to a point of view
that deserves none.

They wouldn't publish an op-ed claiming that 9/11 was a black flag operation by
elements in the U.S. government, that there are crashed flying saucers in
government hands, that the Apollo moon missions were hoaxes, and so on and so
forth.

Or even one saying that Darwin was wrong.

So why should they publish an editorial claiming that there is any question
about the science of global warming?

I think this may be what is needed to get the New York Times' *attention*. But I
doubt that a boycott will be needed - and, for that matter, that one would be
effective. After all, one wouldn't get Fox News to change its ways with a
boycott. But the New York Times, I'm sure, is run by sensible people who have no
desire to go down the road that Fox News has taken, and thus once they realize
the seriousness of their error, they will not repeat it.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-01 17:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Chris Buckley
because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.
The New York Times is a newspaper with a very good reputation.
You're always good for a laugh.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Chris Buckley
2017-05-01 18:00:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Chris Buckley
because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.
The New York Times is a newspaper with a very good reputation.
So publishing such an editorial gives undeserved credibility to a point of view
that deserves none.
They wouldn't publish an op-ed claiming that 9/11 was a black flag operation by
elements in the U.S. government, that there are crashed flying saucers in
government hands, that the Apollo moon missions were hoaxes, and so on and so
forth.
Or even one saying that Darwin was wrong.
So why should they publish an editorial claiming that there is any question
about the science of global warming?
I think this may be what is needed to get the New York Times' *attention*. But I
doubt that a boycott will be needed - and, for that matter, that one would be
effective. After all, one wouldn't get Fox News to change its ways with a
boycott. But the New York Times, I'm sure, is run by sensible people who have no
desire to go down the road that Fox News has taken, and thus once they realize
the seriousness of their error, they will not repeat it.
Please read the original NY Times op-ed and list all of the incorrect
statements in it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html?_r=0

Please explain in detail why articles like this cannot be allowed to be seen
by anybody.

Chris
h***@gmail.com
2017-05-02 00:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Chris Buckley
because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.
The New York Times is a newspaper with a very good reputation.
So publishing such an editorial gives undeserved credibility to a point of view
that deserves none.
They wouldn't publish an op-ed claiming that 9/11 was a black flag operation by
elements in the U.S. government, that there are crashed flying saucers in
government hands, that the Apollo moon missions were hoaxes, and so on and so
forth.
Or even one saying that Darwin was wrong.
So why should they publish an editorial claiming that there is any question
about the science of global warming?
I think this may be what is needed to get the New York Times' *attention*. But I
doubt that a boycott will be needed - and, for that matter, that one would be
effective. After all, one wouldn't get Fox News to change its ways with a
boycott. But the New York Times, I'm sure, is run by sensible people who have no
desire to go down the road that Fox News has taken, and thus once they realize
the seriousness of their error, they will not repeat it.
Please read the original NY Times op-ed and list all of the incorrect
statements in it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html?_r=0
spin, spin, spin....
Anecdotes about a political campaign compared with climate science investigations since 1859 and a great deal of investigation since the 70s & 80s

Criticises the Clinton campaign for too much reliance on data then takes one poll and assumes that it's completely correct about the public's views on climate science (never mind how much weight public opinion should have on how the country should be run)

"None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences." is a blatant lie.
Post by Chris Buckley
Please explain in detail why articles like this cannot be allowed to be seen
by anybody.
Blah, politicians made a mistake using data, scientists use data, scientists could be making a mistake, models aren't 100% accurate so we can ignore predictions...

There is a metric truckload of evidence that climate change is happening, will continue to happen and will cause severe problems, calling it "just data" is pointless.
Quadibloc
2017-05-02 08:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You do have a point. The op-ed was not the sort of thing I had assumed
based on what was said here.

However, the analogy to the Clinton campaign breaks down because the
certitude under criticism is not internal, it's there to avoid
creating confusion with mixed messages.

If, however, one accepts both a temperature rise, and that humans
have caused it, then that is enough to realize that urgent action is
needed. That the predictions of climate models are merely
provisional, and much less certain than those two basic facts... is he
quite sure scientists have been going around claiming otherwise?

A lie that's half the truth is a harder matter to fight, as Kipling quoted.

Some other mistake, not a false certitude, is feeding climate denial,
in my opinion.

If the only way to avert catastrophic global warming is to drastically
reduce energy consumption, then, although eliminating waste and
adopting technical measures of energy conservation will help, the obvious
likely consequence is a decline in industrial output and economic performance.

The public, understandably, demands obvious proof before accepting such
sacrifices - and, due to the nature of the greenhouse effect, by the time
it's obvious, it will be far too late to take action.

So we're all doomed. If only there were some other way - in addition to
hydroelectricity, only available in some locations, and wind and solar,
which are intermittent, and consume lots of land area for the limited
power they consume - to produce energy. Something that could be done
just about anywhere, and steadily produce as much energy as one wants,
to support heavy industrial production.

Then action on global warming wouldn't threaten either national security or full employment.

Of course, that's just wishful thinking... oh, wait, what was that
about the fission of the Uranium nucleus?

So the problem isn't certitude. It's playing to the base for purposes of
maintaining a coalition that's killing them.

John Savard
Chris Buckley
2017-05-02 15:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
You do have a point. The op-ed was not the sort of thing I had assumed
based on what was said here.
...
If, however, one accepts both a temperature rise, and that humans
have caused it, then that is enough to realize that urgent action is
needed. That the predictions of climate models are merely
provisional, and much less certain than those two basic facts... is he
quite sure scientists have been going around claiming otherwise?
But how much urgent action is needed? No action costs lives. Urgent
action costs lives. More drastic urgent action costs more lives -
making energy more expensive means third world countries will not
advance as quickly for one thing. Where do you draw the line?

For scientists to say that the uncertainty in the climate models
should not be discussed by non-scientists is ridiculous. It has to be
a major factor in convincing the public to take enough urgent action to
be useful.

Chris
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-02 16:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
For scientists to say that the uncertainty in the climate models
should not be discussed by non-scientists is ridiculous. It has
to be a major factor in convincing the public to take enough
urgent action to be useful.
And therein lies the real issue. Those predicting doom and gloom
cannot possibly not know this. And yet, they continue to demand that
their claims be accepted at face value, and no one is allowed to
question it. In short, doing the same thing, and (pretending they
are) expecting different results.

The behavior is, more and more, like cult leaders, using classic cult
tactics: setting goals, impossible to achieve, isolating their
followers by making them pariahs, and, of course, making certain it
is easy to give them money, money and more money.

And they will *not* talk about it, or even acknowledge that anyone
has pointed it out.

Classic cult behavior.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Magewolf
2017-05-02 19:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Chris Buckley
For scientists to say that the uncertainty in the climate models
should not be discussed by non-scientists is ridiculous. It has
to be a major factor in convincing the public to take enough
urgent action to be useful.
And therein lies the real issue. Those predicting doom and gloom
cannot possibly not know this. And yet, they continue to demand that
their claims be accepted at face value, and no one is allowed to
question it. In short, doing the same thing, and (pretending they
are) expecting different results.
The behavior is, more and more, like cult leaders, using classic cult
tactics: setting goals, impossible to achieve, isolating their
followers by making them pariahs, and, of course, making certain it
is easy to give them money, money and more money.
And they will *not* talk about it, or even acknowledge that anyone
has pointed it out.
Classic cult behavior.
Or perhaps they are willing to argue about the models not being perfect
but good enough while their opponents want to draw out the discussions
until everybody involved are dead and it is somebody else's problem.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 05:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Chris Buckley
For scientists to say that the uncertainty in the climate
models should not be discussed by non-scientists is
ridiculous. It has to be a major factor in convincing the
public to take enough urgent action to be useful.
And therein lies the real issue. Those predicting doom and
gloom cannot possibly not know this. And yet, they continue to
demand that their claims be accepted at face value, and no one
is allowed to question it. In short, doing the same thing, and
(pretending they are) expecting different results.
The behavior is, more and more, like cult leaders, using
classic cult tactics: setting goals, impossible to achieve,
isolating their followers by making them pariahs, and, of
course, making certain it is easy to give them money, money and
more money.
And they will *not* talk about it, or even acknowledge that
anyone has pointed it out.
Classic cult behavior.
Or perhaps they are willing to argue about the models not being
perfect but good enough while their opponents want to draw out
the discussions until everybody involved are dead and it is
somebody else's problem.
When someone points out that the models are all deeply flawed, and
you refuse to acknowledge they have even said so, you say far more
about yourself than you do about your model.

Your response was, in fact, precisely what I was talking about: a
flat refusal to admit there _is_ any other opinion even possible.
That's religion, not science.

(Scott Adams has had some very interesting comments on climate -
and economic - models, and rightly points out they aren't science.
Nobody will take him up on his bet on whether not he can accurately
predict future global temperatures, either.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
h***@gmail.com
2017-05-03 05:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Chris Buckley
For scientists to say that the uncertainty in the climate
models should not be discussed by non-scientists is
ridiculous. It has to be a major factor in convincing the
public to take enough urgent action to be useful.
And therein lies the real issue. Those predicting doom and
gloom cannot possibly not know this. And yet, they continue to
demand that their claims be accepted at face value, and no one
is allowed to question it. In short, doing the same thing, and
(pretending they are) expecting different results.
The behavior is, more and more, like cult leaders, using
classic cult tactics: setting goals, impossible to achieve,
isolating their followers by making them pariahs, and, of
course, making certain it is easy to give them money, money and
more money.
And they will *not* talk about it, or even acknowledge that
anyone has pointed it out.
Classic cult behavior.
Or perhaps they are willing to argue about the models not being
perfect but good enough while their opponents want to draw out
the discussions until everybody involved are dead and it is
somebody else's problem.
When someone points out that the models are all deeply flawed
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 06:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Chris Buckley
For scientists to say that the uncertainty in the climate
models should not be discussed by non-scientists is
ridiculous. It has to be a major factor in convincing the
public to take enough urgent action to be useful.
And therein lies the real issue. Those predicting doom and
gloom cannot possibly not know this. And yet, they continue
to demand that their claims be accepted at face value, and
no one is allowed to question it. In short, doing the same
thing, and (pretending they are) expecting different
results.
The behavior is, more and more, like cult leaders, using
classic cult tactics: setting goals, impossible to achieve,
isolating their followers by making them pariahs, and, of
course, making certain it is easy to give them money, money
and more money.
And they will *not* talk about it, or even acknowledge that
anyone has pointed it out.
Classic cult behavior.
Or perhaps they are willing to argue about the models not
being perfect but good enough while their opponents want to
draw out the discussions until everybody involved are dead
and it is somebody else's problem.
When someone points out that the models are all deeply flawed
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You dispute that people have said that the models are all deeply
flawed?

Or are you repsonding to something I didn't actually say, because
you can't dispute what I did say? A *scientist* would respond to
the claim that the models are flawed by examining the claim, and
refuting it. Instead, you respond by snipping out the parts you
don't like, and pretending it says something else.

A cultist responds by not responding at all, if possible, or by
lying about it they can't ignore it.

This is typical cult behavior.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
h***@gmail.com
2017-05-03 06:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Chris Buckley
For scientists to say that the uncertainty in the climate
models should not be discussed by non-scientists is
ridiculous. It has to be a major factor in convincing the
public to take enough urgent action to be useful.
And therein lies the real issue. Those predicting doom and
gloom cannot possibly not know this. And yet, they continue
to demand that their claims be accepted at face value, and
no one is allowed to question it. In short, doing the same
thing, and (pretending they are) expecting different
results.
The behavior is, more and more, like cult leaders, using
classic cult tactics: setting goals, impossible to achieve,
isolating their followers by making them pariahs, and, of
course, making certain it is easy to give them money, money
and more money.
And they will *not* talk about it, or even acknowledge that
anyone has pointed it out.
Classic cult behavior.
Or perhaps they are willing to argue about the models not
being perfect but good enough while their opponents want to
draw out the discussions until everybody involved are dead
and it is somebody else's problem.
When someone points out that the models are all deeply flawed
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You dispute that people have said that the models are all deeply
flawed?
That's not "points out" that's "alleges"
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 16:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:25:02 PM UTC+10, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 5/2/2017 12:29 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Chris Buckley
For scientists to say that the uncertainty in the
climate models should not be discussed by non-scientists
is ridiculous. It has to be a major factor in
convincing the public to take enough urgent action to be
useful.
And therein lies the real issue. Those predicting doom
and gloom cannot possibly not know this. And yet, they
continue to demand that their claims be accepted at face
value, and no one is allowed to question it. In short,
doing the same thing, and (pretending they are) expecting
different results.
The behavior is, more and more, like cult leaders, using
classic cult tactics: setting goals, impossible to
achieve, isolating their followers by making them
pariahs, and, of course, making certain it is easy to
give them money, money and more money.
And they will *not* talk about it, or even acknowledge
that anyone has pointed it out.
Classic cult behavior.
Or perhaps they are willing to argue about the models not
being perfect but good enough while their opponents want
to draw out the discussions until everybody involved are
dead and it is somebody else's problem.
When someone points out that the models are all deeply
flawed
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You dispute that people have said that the models are all
deeply flawed?
That's not "points out" that's "alleges"
In grown up English, one can easily point out things that are not
necessarily true. In fact, it happens a lot.

Did you fail 6th grade?

And you're still engaging in extremely cult-like behavior, as
predicted. The point remains, unchallenged: the climate alarmists
refuse to acknowledge anything that does not fit their narrative,
just like all cult leaders. That's not science, that're religion.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David DeLaney
2017-05-05 12:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
When someone points out that the models are all deeply flawed
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You dispute that people have said that the models are all deeply flawed?
That isn't what you said.

You said they were "pointing out" that. As though it were just a matter of
pointing at actual evidence.

Retreating to "people have said that" is a big jump. Anybody can say pretty
much anything they want, unconnected with whatever the actual facts are; I
_know_ you know this.

Being able to "point out that" the models are flawed is what assumes facts
not in evidence, namely that they are in fact flawed. "People have said" this
isn't actually disputable; many people, almost all of whom have no idea what
they're talking about, have SAID that.
A cultist responds by not responding at all, if possible, or by
lying about it they can't ignore it.
This is typical cult behavior.
Mmmm.

Dave, dooonuts
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Chris Buckley
2017-05-05 15:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
When someone points out that the models are all deeply flawed
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You dispute that people have said that the models are all deeply flawed?
That isn't what you said.
You said they were "pointing out" that. As though it were just a matter of
pointing at actual evidence.
Retreating to "people have said that" is a big jump. Anybody can say pretty
much anything they want, unconnected with whatever the actual facts are; I
_know_ you know this.
Being able to "point out that" the models are flawed is what assumes facts
not in evidence, namely that they are in fact flawed. "People have said" this
isn't actually disputable; many people, almost all of whom have no idea what
they're talking about, have SAID that.
Sorry, you're off base here. The models are flawed. That is a
fact. And I know of nobody who has an idea of what they are talking
about who says otherwise.

But it's a trivial, almost meaningless, fact; nothing can be concluded
from it. A model would basically have to be as rich as reality (in
the particular sub-domains it's talking about) for it not to be
flawed. And the climate models aren't. It's been several decades
since I've worked with formal models, but it's probably provable that
they are flawed just from the amount of information in them.

"Deeply flawed": that's an entirely different story. The definition of
"deep" needs to be agreed upon before you can talk about it. I can
think of definitions of "deep" for which "deeply flawed" is a fact,
and I can think of definitions for which "not deeply flawed" is a fact
(that the models' predictions are better than random is a fact, IMO).

The fact that you, David, undoubtedly more knowledgable and
understanding of science than the majority of folks out there, are
wrong on this, is an indication of just how much we need to open
up the debate about climate change.

Chris
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-05 16:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
On 2017-05-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:25:02 PM UTC+10, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
When someone points out that the models are all deeply
flawed
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You dispute that people have said that the models are all
deeply flawed?
That isn't what you said.
You said they were "pointing out" that. As though it were just
a matter of pointing at actual evidence.
Retreating to "people have said that" is a big jump. Anybody
can say pretty much anything they want, unconnected with
whatever the actual facts are; I _know_ you know this.
Being able to "point out that" the models are flawed is what
assumes facts not in evidence, namely that they are in fact
flawed. "People have said" this isn't actually disputable; many
people, almost all of whom have no idea what they're talking
about, have SAID that.
Sorry, you're off base here. The models are flawed. That is a
fact. And I know of nobody who has an idea of what they are
talking about who says otherwise.
But it's a trivial, almost meaningless, fact; nothing can be
concluded from it. A model would basically have to be as rich
as reality (in the particular sub-domains it's talking about)
for it not to be flawed. And the climate models aren't. It's
been several decades since I've worked with formal models, but
it's probably provable that they are flawed just from the amount
of information in them.
"Deeply flawed": that's an entirely different story. The
definition of "deep" needs to be agreed upon before you can talk
about it. I can think of definitions of "deep" for which
"deeply flawed" is a fact, and I can think of definitions for
which "not deeply flawed" is a fact (that the models'
predictions are better than random is a fact, IMO).
The fact that you, David, undoubtedly more knowledgable and
understanding of science than the majority of folks out there,
are wrong on this, is an indication of just how much we need to
open up the debate about climate change.
If you assume the goal is to convince people that AGW is real. I no
longer assume that. (Whether or not it *is* real, or even whether
or not the alarmists genuinely believe it is, is not related to the
goals of the alarmists. They wouldn't be the first doomsday cult.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-05 16:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-05-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:25:02 PM UTC+10, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
When someone points out that the models are all deeply flawed
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You dispute that people have said that the models are all
deeply flawed?
That isn't what you said.
It is what I said.
You said they were "pointing out" that. As though it were just a
matter of pointing at actual evidence.
People point out things that aren't true all the time.

You're evading the issue.

As predicted.

Cult behavior.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Magewolf
2017-05-03 06:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Scott Adams
Well if you have a rather bad cartoonist on your side I guess all the
scientists should just give up and try to get jobs pumping gas or
something.Or I guess you could read his blog and see the complete lack
of rational thought involved in it and point and laugh instead.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/9/1641941/-A-detailed-reply-to-Scott-Adams-on-climate-science
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 16:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Scott Adams
Well if you have a rather bad cartoonist on your side I guess
all the scientists should just give up and try to get jobs
pumping gas or something.Or I guess you could read his blog and
see the complete lack of rational thought involved in it and
point and laugh instead.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/9/1641941/-A-detailed-reply-
to-Scott-Adams-on-climate-science
If you're reduce to quoting KOS Kiddies, you've admitted you have
nothing else but the rantings of cultists.

As predicted.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Magewolf
2017-05-03 20:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Scott Adams
Well if you have a rather bad cartoonist on your side I guess
all the scientists should just give up and try to get jobs
pumping gas or something.Or I guess you could read his blog and
see the complete lack of rational thought involved in it and
point and laugh instead.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/9/1641941/-A-detailed-reply-
to-Scott-Adams-on-climate-science
If you're reduce to quoting KOS Kiddies, you've admitted you have
nothing else but the rantings of cultists.
As predicted.
TL I have no rebuttal so I attack the messenger.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 20:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Scott Adams
Well if you have a rather bad cartoonist on your side I guess
all the scientists should just give up and try to get jobs
pumping gas or something.Or I guess you could read his blog
and see the complete lack of rational thought involved in it
and point and laugh instead.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/9/1641941/-A-detailed-repl
y- to-Scott-Adams-on-climate-science
If you're reduce to quoting KOS Kiddies, you've admitted you
have nothing else but the rantings of cultists.
As predicted.
TL I have no rebuttal so I attack the messenger.
Precisely. The message isn't aimed at those who do not believe,
nor is there any desire to change the current situation. The
message is aimed at the True Believers already sending money to
their rich masters, like Al Gore, and the desire is to isolate
their followers as much as possible from the mainstream, lest they
wise up.

Classic cult behavior.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David Mitchell
2017-05-04 04:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Scott Adams
Well if you have a rather bad cartoonist on your side I guess all the
scientists should just give up and try to get jobs pumping gas or
something.Or I guess you could read his blog and see the complete lack
of rational thought involved in it and point and laugh instead.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/9/1641941/-A-detailed-reply-to-Scott-Adams-on-climate-science
I'd like to think that Scott Adams is just trolling his readership to
increase traffic.

It's the only way I can understand his stances on GW and Trump without
losing all respect for him.

I'm not saying that he is, just, dammit, I always liked his work.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-04 05:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Mitchell
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Scott Adams
Well if you have a rather bad cartoonist on your side I guess
all the scientists should just give up and try to get jobs
pumping gas or something.Or I guess you could read his blog and
see the complete lack of rational thought involved in it and
point and laugh instead.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/9/1641941/-A-detailed-reply
-to-Scott-Adams-on-climate-science
I'd like to think that Scott Adams is just trolling his
readership to increase traffic.
The best trolls are the ones the target knows are true.
Post by David Mitchell
It's the only way I can understand his stances on GW and Trump
without losing all respect for him.
That says more about you than it does about him or his stance.
Post by David Mitchell
I'm not saying that he is, just, dammit, I always liked his
work.
But, as with the Hugo people, you're more committed to your
political agenda than you are the quality of the creative work.
Which, again, says more about you.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Chris Buckley
2017-05-03 17:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I thought I would go a little bit deeper into my worries about the
reliability of climate change models.

As I said, I do research in IR - Information Retrieval (think of the
algorithms underlying google search.) The focus of IR is the
construction of models of languages, and the testing of how well those
models perform in reality. So I've been doing modeling for more than
30 years (mostly retired now).

My major worry about models is that there is a large gap between the
reliability of the models applied retrospectively, where you know what
the desired result is while constructing the model, and applied
predictively, where you don't. Much of the work in IR infrastructure
is setting up environments and procedures so you can believe that the
models tested work predictively, not just retrospectively.

I can construct models, giving very plausible explanations every step
of the way, that do quite well when tested on a particular environment
(that I had in mind), but that do quite poorly in general. My model is
overfitted to that one environment.

In the climate model case, overfitting might occur, for example, if
the modeler determined that including one particular interaction at
a particular strength meant that the model better matched the
historical record. In reality, though, that improvement effect was
due to the combination of these other two interactions. By including
the one interaction in the model, the retrospective power of the model
was improved, but the predictive power was hurt.

I have absolutely no doubt that the danger of overfitting was known to
climate change modelers from the beginning, and that they tried their
best to avoid it. But I have absolutely no doubt that they failed.
There simply is not enough information in the very incomplete record
of a single planet's climate that we currently have to distinguish
between all of the possible causes of effects in the historical record.

An example from IR showing the importance of information: In IR,
machine learning models (much easier to do for us than for climate
researchers!) were tried (eg Fuhr) on the early toy collections of the
1980s, and the million document collections of the early 90's and
weren't any more successful than other models. In the late 90's, with
collections in the 10's of millions of documents, they started to
become a bit better. In the 2000s, with test collections of a billion
documents machine learning models were clearly better even in
academia, and places like Google were showing just how good search
could be with document collections several orders of magnitude larger,
and trillions of sample searches.

So given that the climate models are overfitted (and thus can do very
well on the historical record while not doing as well predictively),
are they importantly flawed? Nobody knows. It's extremely difficult
to come up with a measure of overfitting that means anything, and
scientists are very reluctant to spend time publishing all of the
details of potential weaknesses of their work.

One worrisome indication of problems is the number of different papers
that were published that had new model variations that explained why
global temperatures had not gone up for 10 years (his was before it
was decided that they had gone up). If the basic models can be
tweaked that readily, and in that many ways, then they seem to have important
problems with reliability.

But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at all
about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get discussed in
public in general by scientists. However, in this particular case of
climate change, with millions of lives at risk no matter what gets
decided, it's important to understand those weaknesses. I'm very
upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums that discuss
climate model weaknesses.

Chris
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-03 19:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
I thought I would go a little bit deeper into my worries about the
reliability of climate change models.
As I said, I do research in IR - Information Retrieval (think of the
algorithms underlying google search.) The focus of IR is the
construction of models of languages, and the testing of how well those
models perform in reality. So I've been doing modeling for more than
30 years (mostly retired now).
My major worry about models is that there is a large gap between the
reliability of the models applied retrospectively, where you know what
the desired result is while constructing the model, and applied
predictively, where you don't. Much of the work in IR infrastructure
is setting up environments and procedures so you can believe that the
models tested work predictively, not just retrospectively.
I can construct models, giving very plausible explanations every step
of the way, that do quite well when tested on a particular environment
(that I had in mind), but that do quite poorly in general. My model is
overfitted to that one environment.
In the climate model case, overfitting might occur, for example, if
the modeler determined that including one particular interaction at
a particular strength meant that the model better matched the
historical record. In reality, though, that improvement effect was
due to the combination of these other two interactions. By including
the one interaction in the model, the retrospective power of the model
was improved, but the predictive power was hurt.
I have absolutely no doubt that the danger of overfitting was known to
climate change modelers from the beginning, and that they tried their
best to avoid it. But I have absolutely no doubt that they failed.
There simply is not enough information in the very incomplete record
of a single planet's climate that we currently have to distinguish
between all of the possible causes of effects in the historical record.
An example from IR showing the importance of information: In IR,
machine learning models (much easier to do for us than for climate
researchers!) were tried (eg Fuhr) on the early toy collections of the
1980s, and the million document collections of the early 90's and
weren't any more successful than other models. In the late 90's, with
collections in the 10's of millions of documents, they started to
become a bit better. In the 2000s, with test collections of a billion
documents machine learning models were clearly better even in
academia, and places like Google were showing just how good search
could be with document collections several orders of magnitude larger,
and trillions of sample searches.
So given that the climate models are overfitted (and thus can do very
well on the historical record while not doing as well predictively),
are they importantly flawed? Nobody knows. It's extremely difficult
to come up with a measure of overfitting that means anything, and
scientists are very reluctant to spend time publishing all of the
details of potential weaknesses of their work.
One worrisome indication of problems is the number of different papers
that were published that had new model variations that explained why
global temperatures had not gone up for 10 years (his was before it
was decided that they had gone up). If the basic models can be
tweaked that readily, and in that many ways, then they seem to have important
problems with reliability.
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at all
about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get discussed in
public in general by scientists. However, in this particular case of
climate change, with millions of lives at risk no matter what gets
decided, it's important to understand those weaknesses. I'm very
upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums that discuss
climate model weaknesses.
Chris
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2017-05-03 21:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
I thought I would go a little bit deeper into my worries about the
reliability of climate change models.
As I said, I do research in IR - Information Retrieval (think of the
algorithms underlying google search.) The focus of IR is the
construction of models of languages, and the testing of how well those
models perform in reality. So I've been doing modeling for more than
30 years (mostly retired now).
My major worry about models is that there is a large gap between the
reliability of the models applied retrospectively, where you know what
the desired result is while constructing the model, and applied
predictively, where you don't. Much of the work in IR infrastructure
is setting up environments and procedures so you can believe that the
models tested work predictively, not just retrospectively.
I can construct models, giving very plausible explanations every step
of the way, that do quite well when tested on a particular environment
(that I had in mind), but that do quite poorly in general. My model is
overfitted to that one environment.
In the climate model case, overfitting might occur, for example, if
the modeler determined that including one particular interaction at
a particular strength meant that the model better matched the
historical record. In reality, though, that improvement effect was
due to the combination of these other two interactions. By including
the one interaction in the model, the retrospective power of the model
was improved, but the predictive power was hurt.
I have absolutely no doubt that the danger of overfitting was known to
climate change modelers from the beginning, and that they tried their
best to avoid it. But I have absolutely no doubt that they failed.
There simply is not enough information in the very incomplete record
of a single planet's climate that we currently have to distinguish
between all of the possible causes of effects in the historical record.
An example from IR showing the importance of information: In IR,
machine learning models (much easier to do for us than for climate
researchers!) were tried (eg Fuhr) on the early toy collections of the
1980s, and the million document collections of the early 90's and
weren't any more successful than other models. In the late 90's, with
collections in the 10's of millions of documents, they started to
become a bit better. In the 2000s, with test collections of a billion
documents machine learning models were clearly better even in
academia, and places like Google were showing just how good search
could be with document collections several orders of magnitude larger,
and trillions of sample searches.
So given that the climate models are overfitted (and thus can do very
well on the historical record while not doing as well predictively),
are they importantly flawed? Nobody knows. It's extremely difficult
to come up with a measure of overfitting that means anything, and
scientists are very reluctant to spend time publishing all of the
details of potential weaknesses of their work.
One worrisome indication of problems is the number of different papers
that were published that had new model variations that explained why
global temperatures had not gone up for 10 years (his was before it
was decided that they had gone up). If the basic models can be
tweaked that readily, and in that many ways, then they seem to have important
problems with reliability.
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at all
about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get discussed in
public in general by scientists. However, in this particular case of
climate change, with millions of lives at risk no matter what gets
decided, it's important to understand those weaknesses. I'm very
upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums that discuss
climate model weaknesses.
Chris
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
Not within our current capabilities.
--
Some days you just don't have enough middle fingers!
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 22:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
I thought I would go a little bit deeper into my worries about
the reliability of climate change models.
As I said, I do research in IR - Information Retrieval (think
of the algorithms underlying google search.) The focus of IR
is the construction of models of languages, and the testing of
how well those models perform in reality. So I've been doing
modeling for more than 30 years (mostly retired now).
My major worry about models is that there is a large gap
between the reliability of the models applied retrospectively,
where you know what the desired result is while constructing
the model, and applied predictively, where you don't. Much of
the work in IR infrastructure is setting up environments and
procedures so you can believe that the models tested work
predictively, not just retrospectively.
I can construct models, giving very plausible explanations
every step of the way, that do quite well when tested on a
particular environment (that I had in mind), but that do quite
poorly in general. My model is overfitted to that one
environment.
In the climate model case, overfitting might occur, for
example, if the modeler determined that including one
particular interaction at a particular strength meant that the
model better matched the historical record. In reality,
though, that improvement effect was due to the combination of
these other two interactions. By including the one
interaction in the model, the retrospective power of the model
was improved, but the predictive power was hurt.
I have absolutely no doubt that the danger of overfitting was
known to climate change modelers from the beginning, and that
they tried their best to avoid it. But I have absolutely no
doubt that they failed. There simply is not enough information
in the very incomplete record of a single planet's climate
that we currently have to distinguish between all of the
possible causes of effects in the historical record.
An example from IR showing the importance of information: In
IR, machine learning models (much easier to do for us than for
climate researchers!) were tried (eg Fuhr) on the early toy
collections of the 1980s, and the million document collections
of the early 90's and weren't any more successful than other
models. In the late 90's, with collections in the 10's of
millions of documents, they started to become a bit better. In
the 2000s, with test collections of a billion documents
machine learning models were clearly better even in academia,
and places like Google were showing just how good search could
be with document collections several orders of magnitude
larger, and trillions of sample searches.
So given that the climate models are overfitted (and thus can
do very well on the historical record while not doing as well
predictively), are they importantly flawed? Nobody knows.
It's extremely difficult to come up with a measure of
overfitting that means anything, and scientists are very
reluctant to spend time publishing all of the details of
potential weaknesses of their work.
One worrisome indication of problems is the number of
different papers that were published that had new model
variations that explained why global temperatures had not gone
up for 10 years (his was before it was decided that they had
gone up). If the basic models can be tweaked that readily,
and in that many ways, then they seem to have important
problems with reliability.
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at
all about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get
discussed in public in general by scientists. However, in this
particular case of climate change, with millions of lives at
risk no matter what gets decided, it's important to understand
those weaknesses. I'm very upset at climate scientists who
try to shut down forums that discuss climate model weaknesses.
Chris
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a
few options other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor
out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space
between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
Not within our current capabilities.
Neither are any of the other proposed solutions if we assume they
all end with "without having billions of people die."
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-03 23:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
I thought I would go a little bit deeper into my worries about the
reliability of climate change models.
As I said, I do research in IR - Information Retrieval (think of the
algorithms underlying google search.) The focus of IR is the
construction of models of languages, and the testing of how well those
models perform in reality. So I've been doing modeling for more than
30 years (mostly retired now).
My major worry about models is that there is a large gap between the
reliability of the models applied retrospectively, where you know what
the desired result is while constructing the model, and applied
predictively, where you don't. Much of the work in IR infrastructure
is setting up environments and procedures so you can believe that the
models tested work predictively, not just retrospectively.
I can construct models, giving very plausible explanations every step
of the way, that do quite well when tested on a particular environment
(that I had in mind), but that do quite poorly in general. My model is
overfitted to that one environment.
In the climate model case, overfitting might occur, for example, if
the modeler determined that including one particular interaction at
a particular strength meant that the model better matched the
historical record. In reality, though, that improvement effect was
due to the combination of these other two interactions. By including
the one interaction in the model, the retrospective power of the model
was improved, but the predictive power was hurt.
I have absolutely no doubt that the danger of overfitting was known to
climate change modelers from the beginning, and that they tried their
best to avoid it. But I have absolutely no doubt that they failed.
There simply is not enough information in the very incomplete record
of a single planet's climate that we currently have to distinguish
between all of the possible causes of effects in the historical record.
An example from IR showing the importance of information: In IR,
machine learning models (much easier to do for us than for climate
researchers!) were tried (eg Fuhr) on the early toy collections of the
1980s, and the million document collections of the early 90's and
weren't any more successful than other models. In the late 90's, with
collections in the 10's of millions of documents, they started to
become a bit better. In the 2000s, with test collections of a billion
documents machine learning models were clearly better even in
academia, and places like Google were showing just how good search
could be with document collections several orders of magnitude larger,
and trillions of sample searches.
So given that the climate models are overfitted (and thus can do very
well on the historical record while not doing as well predictively),
are they importantly flawed? Nobody knows. It's extremely difficult
to come up with a measure of overfitting that means anything, and
scientists are very reluctant to spend time publishing all of the
details of potential weaknesses of their work.
One worrisome indication of problems is the number of different papers
that were published that had new model variations that explained why
global temperatures had not gone up for 10 years (his was before it
was decided that they had gone up). If the basic models can be
tweaked that readily, and in that many ways, then they seem to have important
problems with reliability.
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at all
about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get discussed in
public in general by scientists. However, in this particular case of
climate change, with millions of lives at risk no matter what gets
decided, it's important to understand those weaknesses. I'm very
upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums that discuss
climate model weaknesses.
Chris
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few
options other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the
atmosphere. One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space
between the Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further
out there.
Not within our current capabilities.
There are actually people who have worked out the math and sizing
needed. Think DirecTV (geostationary) satellites. Jerry Pournelle
looked into it a couple of years ago and was pleasantly surprised. The
cost would be ... breathtaking.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2017-05-04 07:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
I thought I would go a little bit deeper into my worries about the
reliability of climate change models.
As I said, I do research in IR - Information Retrieval (think of the
algorithms underlying google search.) The focus of IR is the
construction of models of languages, and the testing of how well those
models perform in reality. So I've been doing modeling for more than
30 years (mostly retired now).
My major worry about models is that there is a large gap between the
reliability of the models applied retrospectively, where you know what
the desired result is while constructing the model, and applied
predictively, where you don't. Much of the work in IR infrastructure
is setting up environments and procedures so you can believe that the
models tested work predictively, not just retrospectively.
I can construct models, giving very plausible explanations every step
of the way, that do quite well when tested on a particular environment
(that I had in mind), but that do quite poorly in general. My model is
overfitted to that one environment.
In the climate model case, overfitting might occur, for example, if
the modeler determined that including one particular interaction at
a particular strength meant that the model better matched the
historical record. In reality, though, that improvement effect was
due to the combination of these other two interactions. By including
the one interaction in the model, the retrospective power of the model
was improved, but the predictive power was hurt.
I have absolutely no doubt that the danger of overfitting was known to
climate change modelers from the beginning, and that they tried their
best to avoid it. But I have absolutely no doubt that they failed.
There simply is not enough information in the very incomplete record
of a single planet's climate that we currently have to distinguish
between all of the possible causes of effects in the historical record.
An example from IR showing the importance of information: In IR,
machine learning models (much easier to do for us than for climate
researchers!) were tried (eg Fuhr) on the early toy collections of the
1980s, and the million document collections of the early 90's and
weren't any more successful than other models. In the late 90's, with
collections in the 10's of millions of documents, they started to
become a bit better. In the 2000s, with test collections of a billion
documents machine learning models were clearly better even in
academia, and places like Google were showing just how good search
could be with document collections several orders of magnitude larger,
and trillions of sample searches.
So given that the climate models are overfitted (and thus can do very
well on the historical record while not doing as well predictively),
are they importantly flawed? Nobody knows. It's extremely difficult
to come up with a measure of overfitting that means anything, and
scientists are very reluctant to spend time publishing all of the
details of potential weaknesses of their work.
One worrisome indication of problems is the number of different papers
that were published that had new model variations that explained why
global temperatures had not gone up for 10 years (his was before it
was decided that they had gone up). If the basic models can be
tweaked that readily, and in that many ways, then they seem to have important
problems with reliability.
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at all
about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get discussed in
public in general by scientists. However, in this particular case of
climate change, with millions of lives at risk no matter what gets
decided, it's important to understand those weaknesses. I'm very
upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums that discuss
climate model weaknesses.
Chris
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
Not within our current capabilities.
Don't be too sure. We've always done space piecemeal as a luxury item.
Apply mass production and even with throwaways the cost gets a lot lower,
and we wouldn't be using throwaways--that ship has sailed. And if it's a
matter of species survival then Orion becomes viable.
Greg Goss
2017-05-07 14:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
Not within our current capabilities.
There are other "geoengineering" proposals. One is injecting sulfate
aerosol into the upper atmosphere much like volcanoes does. Each (of
millions) injection is good for three years or so, so you're pretty
much committed to doing it forever. I think I've also seen a proposal
for doing something similar with micro limestone particles - more
expensive to do, but less side effects.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2017-05-07 15:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
Not within our current capabilities.
There are other "geoengineering" proposals. One is injecting sulfate
aerosol into the upper atmosphere much like volcanoes does. Each (of
millions) injection is good for three years or so, so you're pretty
much committed to doing it forever.
Or until the CO2 emissions have been adjusted, or until the glaciation
switch flips and you have a different problem.
Post by Greg Goss
I think I've also seen a proposal
for doing something similar with micro limestone particles - more
expensive to do, but less side effects.
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-08 19:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
Not within our current capabilities.
There are other "geoengineering" proposals. One is injecting sulfate
aerosol into the upper atmosphere much like volcanoes does. Each (of
millions) injection is good for three years or so, so you're pretty
much committed to doing it forever.
Or until the CO2 emissions have been adjusted, or until the glaciation
switch flips and you have a different problem.
...

"ICE AGE BRITAIN: River Thames will FREEZE OVER on 'this date' – and
could kill millions"

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/611671/ice-age-britain-freeze-climate-change-weather

Or not. I don’t trust any weather forecast past three days in the
future. Too many unknowns.

Lynn
Robert Carnegie
2017-05-08 21:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
Not within our current capabilities.
There are other "geoengineering" proposals. One is injecting sulfate
aerosol into the upper atmosphere much like volcanoes does. Each (of
millions) injection is good for three years or so, so you're pretty
much committed to doing it forever.
Or until the CO2 emissions have been adjusted, or until the glaciation
switch flips and you have a different problem.
...
"ICE AGE BRITAIN: River Thames will FREEZE OVER on 'this date' – and
could kill millions"
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/611671/ice-age-britain-freeze-climate-change-weather
Or not. I don’t trust any weather forecast past three days in the
future. Too many unknowns.
The Daily Star is extremely unrespectable
scientifically and is most probably influenced
by last week's episode of "Doctor Who" which
was set around the Frost Fair of 1814.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08pmk0q>
Peter Trei
2017-05-08 21:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
Not within our current capabilities.
There are other "geoengineering" proposals. One is injecting sulfate
aerosol into the upper atmosphere much like volcanoes does. Each (of
millions) injection is good for three years or so, so you're pretty
much committed to doing it forever.
Or until the CO2 emissions have been adjusted, or until the glaciation
switch flips and you have a different problem.
...
"ICE AGE BRITAIN: River Thames will FREEZE OVER on 'this date' – and
could kill millions"
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/611671/ice-age-britain-freeze-climate-change-weather
Or not. I don’t trust any weather forecast past three days in the
future. Too many unknowns.
Citing the Daily Star is like citing Weekly World News.
Your reputation goes *down* when you use it to back your case.

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-08 22:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have
a few opt
ions
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of
the atmosph
ere.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in
space between
the
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further
out there
.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Not within our current capabilities.
There are other "geoengineering" proposals. One is
injecting sulfate aerosol into the upper atmosphere much
like volcanoes does. Each (of millions) injection is good
for three years or so, so you're pretty much committed to
doing it forever.
Or until the CO2 emissions have been adjusted, or until the
glaciation switch flips and you have a different problem.
...
"ICE AGE BRITAIN: River Thames will FREEZE OVER on 'this date'
–
and
Post by Lynn McGuire
could kill millions"
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/611671/ice-age-brita
in-freeze
-climate-change-weather
Post by Lynn McGuire
Or not. I don’t trust any weather forecast past three days in
the
future. Too many unknowns.
Citing the Daily Star is like citing Weekly World News.
Your reputation goes *down* when you use it to back your case.
Setting a low bar only makes it easier if you're playing limbo.

There aren't many sources that could make Lynn look *more* wrong.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-05-09 02:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Setting a low bar only makes it easier if you're playing limbo.
ITYM "harder".

John Savard
Dimensional Traveler
2017-05-07 16:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
Not within our current capabilities.
There are other "geoengineering" proposals. One is injecting sulfate
aerosol into the upper atmosphere much like volcanoes does. Each (of
millions) injection is good for three years or so, so you're pretty
much committed to doing it forever. I think I've also seen a proposal
for doing something similar with micro limestone particles - more
expensive to do, but less side effects.
Either of those proposals include estimates of how many tons of material
would need to be mined and processed each year?
--
"That's my secret, Captain: I'm always angry."
J. Clarke
2017-05-07 18:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
Not within our current capabilities.
There are other "geoengineering" proposals. One is injecting sulfate
aerosol into the upper atmosphere much like volcanoes does. Each (of
millions) injection is good for three years or so, so you're pretty
much committed to doing it forever. I think I've also seen a proposal
for doing something similar with micro limestone particles - more
expensive to do, but less side effects.
Either of those proposals include estimates of how many tons of material
would need to be mined and processed each year?
<https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-
global-warming/>

Note, it may be that no mining or processing is required--according to the
wikipedia entry running airliners on high-sulfur fuel might do the job,
with a reduction in operating costs.

In any case it looks like it's solidly doable.
James Nicoll
2017-05-08 13:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
There are other "geoengineering" proposals. One is injecting sulfate
aerosol into the upper atmosphere much like volcanoes does. Each (of
millions) injection is good for three years or so, so you're pretty
much committed to doing it forever.
Which at least avoids being stuck with the unanticipated consequences
forever.

Geoengineering does have the issue of whose desired climate state is the
one we aim for. For example, I shovel snow but never visit Florida: a
climate that eliminated both is clearly superior to one that preserves
both. Likewise, avoiding drought in Ontario is clearly worth the cost
of cloud-dwelling microorganisms dropping mutagenic toxins across
the American south west.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
David DeLaney
2017-05-08 16:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Geoengineering does have the issue of whose desired climate state is the
one we aim for. For example, I shovel snow but never visit Florida: a
climate that eliminated both is clearly superior to one that preserves both.
plz send pictures of technical papers describing climate that is able to
eliminate Florida

dave, must include _all_ of jacksonville
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Peter Trei
2017-05-08 17:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by James Nicoll
Geoengineering does have the issue of whose desired climate state is the
one we aim for. For example, I shovel snow but never visit Florida: a
climate that eliminated both is clearly superior to one that preserves both.
plz send pictures of technical papers describing climate that is able to
eliminate Florida
dave, must include _all_ of jacksonville
--
Not all, but a good chunk:
http://ss2.climatecentral.org/#13/30.3133/-81.6137?show=satellite&projections=0-RCP85-SLR&level=10&unit=feet&pois=show

pt
Quadibloc
2017-05-08 17:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
plz send pictures of technical papers describing climate that is able to
eliminate Florida
dave, must include _all_ of jacksonville
I think he means to eliminate the kind of hot climate
they now experience in Florida - in addition to snow.

One way to do this would be to move the Moon in order to
move the Earth and give it a sane orbit of eternal
springtime.

Or eternal autumn, I suppose that would be equivalent...

Eternal September! Yes, that's the ticket!

John Savard
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2017-05-08 17:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David DeLaney
plz send pictures of technical papers describing climate that is able to
eliminate Florida
dave, must include _all_ of jacksonville
I think he means to eliminate the kind of hot climate
they now experience in Florida - in addition to snow.
One way to do this would be to move the Moon in order to
move the Earth and give it a sane orbit of eternal
springtime.
Or eternal autumn, I suppose that would be equivalent...
Eternal September! Yes, that's the ticket!
John Savard
Jacksonville has a very pleasant climate. Too cold in the winter though.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
David DeLaney
2017-05-09 08:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David DeLaney
plz send pictures of technical papers describing climate that is able to
eliminate Florida
dave, must include _all_ of jacksonville
I think he means to eliminate the kind of hot climate
they now experience in Florida - in addition to snow.
One way to do this would be to move the Moon in order to
move the Earth and give it a sane orbit of eternal springtime.
If we're going to chrome ... I mean move ... the Moon, why don't we just skip
the middleman and post it at the inner Lagrange point? Presto, a few thousand
miles of sunblock.
Post by Quadibloc
Or eternal autumn, I suppose that would be equivalent...
Eternal September! Yes, that's the ticket!
And now I want the next Tales of the Flat Earth book. waaaah!

Dave, i vas zere, sharrrlie
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
larry
2017-05-10 23:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by James Nicoll
Geoengineering does have the issue of whose desired climate state is the
one we aim for. For example, I shovel snow but never visit Florida: a
climate that eliminated both is clearly superior to one that preserves both.
plz send pictures of technical papers describing climate that is able to
eliminate Florida
dave, must include _all_ of jacksonville
That's only 12.2 meters?
We have planning maps for the Salish Sea, with an expectation
of 75 meter sea raise. True, they are *forward* planning maps
but it's within the seven generations horizon (and Cascadia
slipping will probably happen first.)
--
After investigation, believe that which you have yourselves
tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good
and that of others.
Gautama.
Scott Lurndal
2017-05-04 13:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at all
about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get discussed in
public in general by scientists. However, in this particular case of
climate change, with millions of lives at risk no matter what gets
decided, it's important to understand those weaknesses. I'm very
upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums that discuss
climate model weaknesses.
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
And there will be pie in the sky, bye and bye?
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-04 21:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at all
about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get discussed in
public in general by scientists. However, in this particular case of
climate change, with millions of lives at risk no matter what gets
decided, it's important to understand those weaknesses. I'm very
upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums that discuss
climate model weaknesses.
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
And there will be pie in the sky, bye and bye?
Why are you so negative ? There is always more than one solution to a
problem. The answers usually come down to the old rules of good, cheap,
and fast. If you are lucky, you get to have two of those. If you are
not so lucky then you only get one.

The USA and other nations have several heavy lifters. How do you think
that those six ? eight ? ten ? DirecTV satellites got into space ? If
we really had to, we could build a heavy lifter a day (SWAG) just using
the Boeing facilities in WA and KS.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2017-05-05 00:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at all
about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get discussed in
public in general by scientists. However, in this particular case of
climate change, with millions of lives at risk no matter what gets
decided, it's important to understand those weaknesses. I'm very
upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums that discuss
climate model weaknesses.
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
And there will be pie in the sky, bye and bye?
Why are you so negative ? There is always more than one solution to a
problem. The answers usually come down to the old rules of good, cheap,
and fast. If you are lucky, you get to have two of those. If you are
not so lucky then you only get one.
The USA and other nations have several heavy lifters. How do you think
that those six ? eight ? ten ? DirecTV satellites got into space ? If
we really had to, we could build a heavy lifter a day (SWAG) just using
the Boeing facilities in WA and KS.
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of magnitude
more than the solutions you already reject because they would cost too
much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic about how fast heavy
lifters could be built. Satellites don't require "heavy lifters" to be
launched.
--
Some days you just don't have enough middle fingers!
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-05 00:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at all
about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get discussed in
public in general by scientists. However, in this particular case of
climate change, with millions of lives at risk no matter what gets
decided, it's important to understand those weaknesses. I'm very
upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums that discuss
climate model weaknesses.
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
And there will be pie in the sky, bye and bye?
Why are you so negative ? There is always more than one solution to a
problem. The answers usually come down to the old rules of good,
cheap, and fast. If you are lucky, you get to have two of those. If
you are not so lucky then you only get one.
The USA and other nations have several heavy lifters. How do you
think that those six ? eight ? ten ? DirecTV satellites got into space
? If we really had to, we could build a heavy lifter a day (SWAG)
just using the Boeing facilities in WA and KS.
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of magnitude
more than the solutions you already reject because they would cost too
much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic about how fast heavy
lifters could be built. Satellites don't require "heavy lifters" to be
launched.
The CO2 reduction by the human race is an infeasible solution. You will
never get China, Russia, India, or Brazil to voluntarily reduce their
CO2 output. Those four are 40% of the CO2 emissions according to the
UOCS. That means force to reduce CO2 emissions and force means war.
Wars are horribly expensive, especially if you lose.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

Aren't the DirecTV satellites about 10 tons each with fuel and solar
power wings ? Nope, 6 tons according to Wikipedia. Wow, there are 13
of those suckers active.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV_satellite_fleet

I'll bet that we could build a nice space umbrella satellites that weigh
6 to 10 tons each. Or millions that weigh several pounds each.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160425-how-a-giant-space-umbrella-could-stop-global-warming

Of course, we could bolt an Orion drive to the Earth and move it further
out from the Sun. Now that would be out there.

Lynn
Cryptoengineer
2017-05-05 03:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at all
about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get discussed
in public in general by scientists. However, in this particular
case of climate change, with millions of lives at risk no matter
what gets decided, it's important to understand those weaknesses.
I'm very upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums
that discuss climate model weaknesses.
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
And there will be pie in the sky, bye and bye?
Why are you so negative ? There is always more than one solution to
a problem. The answers usually come down to the old rules of good,
cheap, and fast. If you are lucky, you get to have two of those.
If you are not so lucky then you only get one.
The USA and other nations have several heavy lifters. How do you
think that those six ? eight ? ten ? DirecTV satellites got into
space ? If we really had to, we could build a heavy lifter a day
(SWAG) just using the Boeing facilities in WA and KS.
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of magnitude
more than the solutions you already reject because they would cost
too much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic about how fast
heavy lifters could be built. Satellites don't require "heavy
lifters" to be launched.
The CO2 reduction by the human race is an infeasible solution. You
will never get China, Russia, India, or Brazil to voluntarily reduce
their CO2 output.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. Bloomberg tells me China's
CO2 output is now dropping. No reason it won't happen elsewhere too.
Fossil fuels are becoming economically uncompetitive in some
applications.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/china-s-carbon-
emissions-drop-for-the-first-time-since-2001

pt
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-06 02:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at all
about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get discussed
in public in general by scientists. However, in this particular
case of climate change, with millions of lives at risk no matter
what gets decided, it's important to understand those weaknesses.
I'm very upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums
that discuss climate model weaknesses.
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
And there will be pie in the sky, bye and bye?
Why are you so negative ? There is always more than one solution to
a problem. The answers usually come down to the old rules of good,
cheap, and fast. If you are lucky, you get to have two of those.
If you are not so lucky then you only get one.
The USA and other nations have several heavy lifters. How do you
think that those six ? eight ? ten ? DirecTV satellites got into
space ? If we really had to, we could build a heavy lifter a day
(SWAG) just using the Boeing facilities in WA and KS.
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of magnitude
more than the solutions you already reject because they would cost
too much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic about how fast
heavy lifters could be built. Satellites don't require "heavy
lifters" to be launched.
The CO2 reduction by the human race is an infeasible solution. You
will never get China, Russia, India, or Brazil to voluntarily reduce
their CO2 output.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. Bloomberg tells me China's
CO2 output is now dropping. No reason it won't happen elsewhere too.
Fossil fuels are becoming economically uncompetitive in some
applications.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/china-s-carbon-
emissions-drop-for-the-first-time-since-2001
pt
CO2 generation is reducing in China (and USA). But not to zero. And
the AGW guys are telling us that ALL man made CO2 needs to stop . Now.

Lynn
Cryptoengineer
2017-05-06 14:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at
all about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get
discussed in public in general by scientists. However, in this
particular case of climate change, with millions of lives at
risk no matter what gets decided, it's important to understand
those weaknesses.
I'm very upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums
that discuss climate model weaknesses.
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
And there will be pie in the sky, bye and bye?
Why are you so negative ? There is always more than one solution
to a problem. The answers usually come down to the old rules of
good, cheap, and fast. If you are lucky, you get to have two of
those. If you are not so lucky then you only get one.
The USA and other nations have several heavy lifters. How do you
think that those six ? eight ? ten ? DirecTV satellites got into
space ? If we really had to, we could build a heavy lifter a day
(SWAG) just using the Boeing facilities in WA and KS.
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of
magnitude more than the solutions you already reject because they
would cost too much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic
about how fast heavy lifters could be built. Satellites don't
require "heavy lifters" to be launched.
The CO2 reduction by the human race is an infeasible solution. You
will never get China, Russia, India, or Brazil to voluntarily reduce
their CO2 output.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. Bloomberg tells me China's
CO2 output is now dropping. No reason it won't happen elsewhere too.
Fossil fuels are becoming economically uncompetitive in some
applications.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/china-s-carbon-
emissions-drop-for-the-first-time-since-2001
pt
CO2 generation is reducing in China (and USA). But not to zero. And
the AGW guys are telling us that ALL man made CO2 needs to stop .
Now.
Really? Cite? Clearly doing so would return us to status quo ante
faster, but I think you're taking an extremist, fringe position and
claiming all concerned about AGW hold it.

I've already shown that your claim that we will never get China to
reduce CO2 output was false: it already has. Perhaps you should
reexamine some other of your assumptions too.

pt
J. Clarke
2017-05-06 15:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at
all about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get
discussed in public in general by scientists. However, in this
particular case of climate change, with millions of lives at
risk no matter what gets decided, it's important to understand
those weaknesses.
I'm very upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums
that discuss climate model weaknesses.
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
And there will be pie in the sky, bye and bye?
Why are you so negative ? There is always more than one solution
to a problem. The answers usually come down to the old rules of
good, cheap, and fast. If you are lucky, you get to have two of
those. If you are not so lucky then you only get one.
The USA and other nations have several heavy lifters. How do you
think that those six ? eight ? ten ? DirecTV satellites got into
space ? If we really had to, we could build a heavy lifter a day
(SWAG) just using the Boeing facilities in WA and KS.
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of
magnitude more than the solutions you already reject because they
would cost too much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic
about how fast heavy lifters could be built. Satellites don't
require "heavy lifters" to be launched.
The CO2 reduction by the human race is an infeasible solution. You
will never get China, Russia, India, or Brazil to voluntarily reduce
their CO2 output.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. Bloomberg tells me China's
CO2 output is now dropping. No reason it won't happen elsewhere too.
Fossil fuels are becoming economically uncompetitive in some
applications.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/china-s-carbon-
emissions-drop-for-the-first-time-since-2001
pt
CO2 generation is reducing in China (and USA). But not to zero. And
the AGW guys are telling us that ALL man made CO2 needs to stop .
Now.
Really? Cite? Clearly doing so would return us to status quo ante
faster, but I think you're taking an extremist, fringe position and
claiming all concerned about AGW hold it.
I've already shown that your claim that we will never get China to
reduce CO2 output was false: it already has. Perhaps you should
reexamine some other of your assumptions too.
It's actually surprising that China's emissions have decreased given the
number of brand new coal fired plants they've brought on line. But will
that decrease last if their economy gets moving again?
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-08 20:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chris Buckley
But I'm not a climate scientist and don't know the details at
all about the models. As I said, the weaknesses don't get
discussed in public in general by scientists. However, in this
particular case of climate change, with millions of lives at
risk no matter what gets decided, it's important to understand
those weaknesses.
I'm very upset at climate scientists who try to shut down forums
that discuss climate model weaknesses.
If Global Warming becomes a total disaster then we do have a few options
other than reducing CO2, methane, and water vapor out of the atmosphere.
One of the many solutions is to put "umbrellas" in space between the
Earth and the Sun. There are others that are even further out there.
And there will be pie in the sky, bye and bye?
Why are you so negative ? There is always more than one solution
to a problem. The answers usually come down to the old rules of
good, cheap, and fast. If you are lucky, you get to have two of
those. If you are not so lucky then you only get one.
The USA and other nations have several heavy lifters. How do you
think that those six ? eight ? ten ? DirecTV satellites got into
space ? If we really had to, we could build a heavy lifter a day
(SWAG) just using the Boeing facilities in WA and KS.
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of
magnitude more than the solutions you already reject because they
would cost too much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic
about how fast heavy lifters could be built. Satellites don't
require "heavy lifters" to be launched.
The CO2 reduction by the human race is an infeasible solution. You
will never get China, Russia, India, or Brazil to voluntarily reduce
their CO2 output.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. Bloomberg tells me China's
CO2 output is now dropping. No reason it won't happen elsewhere too.
Fossil fuels are becoming economically uncompetitive in some
applications.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/china-s-carbon-
emissions-drop-for-the-first-time-since-2001
pt
CO2 generation is reducing in China (and USA). But not to zero. And
the AGW guys are telling us that ALL man made CO2 needs to stop .
Now.
Really? Cite? Clearly doing so would return us to status quo ante
faster, but I think you're taking an extremist, fringe position and
claiming all concerned about AGW hold it.
I've already shown that your claim that we will never get China to
reduce CO2 output was false: it already has. Perhaps you should
reexamine some other of your assumptions too.
pt
China reducing their CO2 output by 10% and reducing their CO2 output by
50% are way different things. Besides that, all of the AGW people that
I have read said that we need to go CO2 neutral NOW.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2017-05-08 20:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
CO2 generation is reducing in China (and USA). But not to zero. And
the AGW guys are telling us that ALL man made CO2 needs to stop .
Now.
Really? Cite? Clearly doing so would return us to status quo ante
faster, but I think you're taking an extremist, fringe position and
claiming all concerned about AGW hold it.
China reducing their CO2 output by 10% and reducing their CO2 output by
50% are way different things. Besides that, all of the AGW people that
I have read said that we need to go CO2 neutral NOW.
Lack of citation noted. First, define an "AGW person", then cite any
statements that support your assertion that it must be NOW.
Titus G
2017-05-08 20:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
CO2 generation is reducing in China (and USA). But not to
zero. And the AGW guys are telling us that ALL man made CO2
needs to stop . Now.
Really? Cite? Clearly doing so would return us to status quo
ante faster, but I think you're taking an extremist, fringe
position and claiming all concerned about AGW hold it.
China reducing their CO2 output by 10% and reducing their CO2
output by 50% are way different things. Besides that, all of the
AGW people that I have read said that we need to go CO2 neutral
NOW.
Lack of citation noted. First, define an "AGW person", then cite
any statements that support your assertion that it must be NOW.
Then tidy your room and be nice to your little sister.
Peter Trei
2017-05-08 21:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
CO2 generation is reducing in China (and USA). But not to zero. And
the AGW guys are telling us that ALL man made CO2 needs to stop .
Now.
Really? Cite? Clearly doing so would return us to status quo ante
faster, but I think you're taking an extremist, fringe position and
claiming all concerned about AGW hold it.
China reducing their CO2 output by 10% and reducing their CO2 output by
50% are way different things. Besides that, all of the AGW people that
I have read said that we need to go CO2 neutral NOW.
Lack of citation noted. First, define an "AGW person", then cite any
statements that support your assertion that it must be NOW.
I have no doubt he can find some. Whether they are representative of most
people concerned over AGW is another thing he'd need to prove.

pt
Scott Lurndal
2017-05-05 13:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of magnitude
more than the solutions you already reject because they would cost too
much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic about how fast heavy
lifters could be built. Satellites don't require "heavy lifters" to be
launched.
Indeed. A falcon 9 is sufficient for LEO. It can reach a GTO with
a smaller satellite capable of transfering to GEO using its own
propulsion system.

Falcon 9 heavy will have a larger throw-weight, but to put a bus-sized
satellite in GEO currently requires a ULA launcher (Delta Heavy, half-billion
per launch).
Post by Lynn McGuire
The CO2 reduction by the human race is an infeasible solution. You will
never get China, Russia, India, or Brazil to voluntarily reduce their
Hello - China is _already_ voluntarily reducing their CO2 emissions.

From Forbes:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sites/undefined/undefined/undefined/undefined/undefined/?q=cache:KeBdLAfhvgIJ:www.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fjillbaker%2F2016%2F07%2F20%2Fgood-news-from-china-coal-has-peaked-and-emissions-will-begin-falling-after-2020-2022%2F%20&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#5a8f4a092834

"One of China's top climate scientists says that China is on
track to see carbon dioxide emissions peak between 2020 and 2022,
almost a decade earlier than the Chinese leadership has promised,
and to make its economy far more energy-efficient than expected.

Beijing's Energy Research Institute's Senior Researcher Jiang Kejun
also confirmed that China's coal use peaked in 2014, a full decade
before most observers thought that it would be possible; the seeming
decline since that peak has been regarded by some analysts as a temporary
blip due to factors such as a weak economy and increased hydropower in
a rainy year, but Jiang says that coal use is on a permanent decline.

Meanwhile, Trump wants to double-down on dirty energy. I'll wager real
money that regardless of Trump's evisceration of coal regulations, there
will -never- be a new coal-fired plant built in the USA, as they're simply
not economically feasible.
Peter Trei
2017-05-05 17:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Dimensional Traveler
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of magnitude
more than the solutions you already reject because they would cost too
much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic about how fast heavy
lifters could be built. Satellites don't require "heavy lifters" to be
launched.
Indeed. A falcon 9 is sufficient for LEO. It can reach a GTO with
a smaller satellite capable of transfering to GEO using its own
propulsion system.
Falcon 9 heavy will have a larger throw-weight, but to put a bus-sized
satellite in GEO currently requires a ULA launcher (Delta Heavy, half-billion
per launch).
L1, where they propose to put the sunshades is way, way above GTO. It's well
beyond the Moon, at 1.5 Mkm. I don't thing a Falcon 9 could do it. A Falcon
Heavy could.

pt
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-06 02:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Dimensional Traveler
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of magnitude
more than the solutions you already reject because they would cost too
much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic about how fast heavy
lifters could be built. Satellites don't require "heavy lifters" to be
launched.
Indeed. A falcon 9 is sufficient for LEO. It can reach a GTO with
a smaller satellite capable of transfering to GEO using its own
propulsion system.
Falcon 9 heavy will have a larger throw-weight, but to put a bus-sized
satellite in GEO currently requires a ULA launcher (Delta Heavy, half-billion
per launch).
L1, where they propose to put the sunshades is way, way above GTO. It's well
beyond the Moon, at 1.5 Mkm. I don't thing a Falcon 9 could do it. A Falcon
Heavy could.
pt
I did not realize that. Not good. I figure that they would be above
the equator in GEO and lower the equatorial temperatures. Belize would
like that.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2017-05-06 11:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Dimensional Traveler
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of magnitude
more than the solutions you already reject because they would cost too
much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic about how fast heavy
lifters could be built. Satellites don't require "heavy lifters" to be
launched.
Indeed. A falcon 9 is sufficient for LEO. It can reach a GTO with
a smaller satellite capable of transfering to GEO using its own
propulsion system.
Falcon 9 heavy will have a larger throw-weight, but to put a bus-sized
satellite in GEO currently requires a ULA launcher (Delta Heavy, half-billion
per launch).
L1, where they propose to put the sunshades is way, way above GTO. It's well
beyond the Moon, at 1.5 Mkm. I don't thing a Falcon 9 could do it. A Falcon
Heavy could.
pt
I did not realize that. Not good. I figure that they would be above
the equator in GEO and lower the equatorial temperatures. Belize would
like that.
The problem with GEO is that the Earth's axis is inclined. They'd only be
between the Earth and the Sun twice a year. An orbit with the right
inclination relative to the Earth's axis might work.

But what does geostationary bring to the party for sunshades? The
circumferences of a geostationary orbit is almost 80,000 miles. How many
sunshade satellites do you need at that altitude to provide a significant
reduction in insolation? How many do you need of the same size in Low
Earth Orbit (circumference roughly 25,000 miles)?

Oh, and launching on Falcon Heavy or Delta Heavy or anything Heavy? You're
not thinking. If it's going to be effective it has to be a BIG sob no
matter how many of them you launch--whether LEO, GEO, or L1, it has to be
on roughly the same scale. Its not something that's going to go up in one
launch on anything we have. We know how to build things in orbit and
that's how these sunshades will have to be built--send the pieces up in
multiple flights, build on-orbit, and attach an ion drive to move it to
wherever it needs to be (and at that point "wherever it needs to be" may as
well be L1 so you only need one or two of them (one primary and a spare).

If you want to launch it from the surface in one go though, I suspect
you're talking about a job for Orion.
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-08 20:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Dimensional Traveler
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of magnitude
more than the solutions you already reject because they would cost too
much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic about how fast heavy
lifters could be built. Satellites don't require "heavy lifters" to be
launched.
Indeed. A falcon 9 is sufficient for LEO. It can reach a GTO with
a smaller satellite capable of transfering to GEO using its own
propulsion system.
Falcon 9 heavy will have a larger throw-weight, but to put a bus-sized
satellite in GEO currently requires a ULA launcher (Delta Heavy, half-billion
per launch).
L1, where they propose to put the sunshades is way, way above GTO. It's well
beyond the Moon, at 1.5 Mkm. I don't thing a Falcon 9 could do it. A Falcon
Heavy could.
pt
I did not realize that. Not good. I figure that they would be above
the equator in GEO and lower the equatorial temperatures. Belize would
like that.
The problem with GEO is that the Earth's axis is inclined. They'd only be
between the Earth and the Sun twice a year. An orbit with the right
inclination relative to the Earth's axis might work.
But what does geostationary bring to the party for sunshades? The
circumferences of a geostationary orbit is almost 80,000 miles. How many
sunshade satellites do you need at that altitude to provide a significant
reduction in insolation? How many do you need of the same size in Low
Earth Orbit (circumference roughly 25,000 miles)?
Oh, and launching on Falcon Heavy or Delta Heavy or anything Heavy? You're
not thinking. If it's going to be effective it has to be a BIG sob no
matter how many of them you launch--whether LEO, GEO, or L1, it has to be
on roughly the same scale. Its not something that's going to go up in one
launch on anything we have. We know how to build things in orbit and
that's how these sunshades will have to be built--send the pieces up in
multiple flights, build on-orbit, and attach an ion drive to move it to
wherever it needs to be (and at that point "wherever it needs to be" may as
well be L1 so you only need one or two of them (one primary and a spare).
If you want to launch it from the surface in one go though, I suspect
you're talking about a job for Orion.
Sweet, we could get a twofer out of that. Sunshades and nuclear winter !

Lynn
Greg Goss
2017-05-09 08:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
If you want to launch it from the surface in one go though, I suspect
you're talking about a job for Orion.
Sweet, we could get a twofer out of that. Sunshades and nuclear winter !
A small number of blasts don't get you a winter. IIRC the French were
still doing above-ground tests when I was growing up.

Hmm, perhaps that's why the warming pause in the late sixties and
early seventies? (grin)
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Scott Lurndal
2017-05-06 14:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
L1, where they propose to put the sunshades is way, way above GTO. It's well
beyond the Moon, at 1.5 Mkm. I don't thing a Falcon 9 could do it. A Falcon
Heavy could.
pt
I did not realize that. Not good. I figure that they would be above
the equator in GEO and lower the equatorial temperatures. Belize would
like that.
Homework assignment for you. Calculate how large such a screen
would need to be to be useful at GEO.
Dimensional Traveler
2017-05-06 18:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
L1, where they propose to put the sunshades is way, way above GTO. It's well
beyond the Moon, at 1.5 Mkm. I don't thing a Falcon 9 could do it. A Falcon
Heavy could.
pt
I did not realize that. Not good. I figure that they would be above
the equator in GEO and lower the equatorial temperatures. Belize would
like that.
Homework assignment for you. Calculate how large such a screen
would need to be to be useful at GEO.
Hint: Solar eclipse and what celestial body causes it.
--
Some days you just don't have enough middle fingers!
Cryptoengineer
2017-05-06 19:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
L1, where they propose to put the sunshades is way, way above GTO.
It's well beyond the Moon, at 1.5 Mkm. I don't thing a Falcon 9
could do it. A Falcon Heavy could.
pt
I did not realize that. Not good. I figure that they would be
above the equator in GEO and lower the equatorial temperatures.
Belize would like that.
Homework assignment for you. Calculate how large such a screen
would need to be to be useful at GEO.
Hint: Solar eclipse and what celestial body causes it.
I'll give you another hint: Earth's diameter is roughly 8000
miles, while the circumference of GEO is around 160,000. So, at
best, only 5% of the sunshades would actually be shading the
earth at any given time, vs 100% at L1.

Note that a GEO orbit doesn't have to be in the plane
of the equator. Put in in the plane of the ecliptic, and
you'll always have at least some shading the earth.

pt
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-06 02:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
The solar shades in space idea would cost several orders of magnitude
more than the solutions you already reject because they would cost too
much. And I suspect you are way too optimistic about how fast heavy
lifters could be built. Satellites don't require "heavy lifters" to be
launched.
Indeed. A falcon 9 is sufficient for LEO. It can reach a GTO with
a smaller satellite capable of transfering to GEO using its own
propulsion system.
Falcon 9 heavy will have a larger throw-weight, but to put a bus-sized
satellite in GEO currently requires a ULA launcher (Delta Heavy, half-billion
per launch).
Post by Lynn McGuire
The CO2 reduction by the human race is an infeasible solution. You will
never get China, Russia, India, or Brazil to voluntarily reduce their
Hello - China is _already_ voluntarily reducing their CO2 emissions.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sites/undefined/undefined/undefined/undefined/undefined/?q=cache:KeBdLAfhvgIJ:www.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fjillbaker%2F2016%2F07%2F20%2Fgood-news-from-china-coal-has-peaked-and-emissions-will-begin-falling-after-2020-2022%2F%20&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#5a8f4a092834
"One of China's top climate scientists says that China is on
track to see carbon dioxide emissions peak between 2020 and 2022,
almost a decade earlier than the Chinese leadership has promised,
and to make its economy far more energy-efficient than expected.
Beijing's Energy Research Institute's Senior Researcher Jiang Kejun
also confirmed that China's coal use peaked in 2014, a full decade
before most observers thought that it would be possible; the seeming
decline since that peak has been regarded by some analysts as a temporary
blip due to factors such as a weak economy and increased hydropower in
a rainy year, but Jiang says that coal use is on a permanent decline.
Meanwhile, Trump wants to double-down on dirty energy. I'll wager real
money that regardless of Trump's evisceration of coal regulations, there
will -never- be a new coal-fired plant built in the USA, as they're simply
not economically feasible.
See previous comment on China and USA CO2 reduction.

And I agree that coal fired plants are not economical today. But if
someone invents a super hard material that can withstand 3,300 F (ultra
high temperature ceramic squared or something like that), you will see
new combined cycle coal power plants on an economic basis. Or, if
something happens to the rapidly increasing natural gas supply in the
USA (highly infeasible).

I would prefer that Trump double down on new nuclear power plants. But,
I doubt it. And there is some neat stuff happening in nuclear heat
systems.

https://www.toshiba.co.jp/nuclearenergy/english/business/4s/introduction.htm

Lynn
Mike Van Pelt
2017-05-02 21:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And therein lies the real issue. Those predicting doom and gloom
cannot possibly not know this. And yet, they continue to demand that
their claims be accepted at face value, and no one is allowed to
question it. In short, doing the same thing, and (pretending they
are) expecting different results.
And all but a vanishingly small minority of them will tolerate
no consideration of replacing coal with nuclear. (Hansen is
one of those very few exceptions.) That makes me doubt very
seriously that it's really about CO2/warming. We have the CO2
problem today in large part because of near half a century of
omni-obstructionism regarding nuclear power.

If CO2/warming were *really* an important issue to them, we'd
be fast-tracking nuclear plants in a big way.

It ain't happening.
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost | Mike Van Pelt
always a false front for the urge to rule." | mvp at calweb.com
-- H.L. Mencken | KE6BVH
J. Clarke
2017-05-03 02:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
You do have a point. The op-ed was not the sort of thing I had assumed
based on what was said here.
However, the analogy to the Clinton campaign breaks down because the
certitude under criticism is not internal, it's there to avoid
creating confusion with mixed messages.
If, however, one accepts both a temperature rise, and that humans
have caused it, then that is enough to realize that urgent action is
needed.
No Quadi. The cause is not what merits urgent action. The magnitude is
what merits urgent action, or not, as the case may be.
Quadibloc
2017-05-02 08:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
Please read the original NY Times op-ed and list all of the incorrect
statements in it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html?_r=0
Please explain in detail why articles like this cannot be allowed to be seen
by anybody.
Well, I'll list the *correct* statements in it first.

There is a temperature rise.

Humans are causing it.

The predictions of climate models, unlike those two basic facts, aren't
settled science; they're tentative, and new models may come along with
different predictions.

Those three statements are *all true*.

Well then, what's wrong with the op-ed? Isn't that all it was saying?

Well, no. The incorrect statement is that "scientists" are saying anything
different.

And the really incorrect statement isn't even said explicitly in the op-ed
anywhere - it's just left as an implication for the reader to walk away with.

Basically, that dangerous conclusion is: if we don't have any reliable
climate model that says temperature will rise by X degrees in Y years, then
even _if_ humans are causing global warming, there is no justification for
taking any immediate and serious action to stem global warming.

I can't point to where he says that in so many words - he doesn't. But what
else is one to conclude, if whether or not climate models are certain is
supposed to be the critical point in the climate debate?

How does the greenhouse effect work?

Carbon dioxide is transparent to ordinary light. So it lets sunlight in to
warm the Earth's surface. But it absorbs, and is warmed by, the long-wave
infrared light emitted by bodies much cooler than the Sun's surface... like
the Earth. So, when (any given location on) the Earth cools at night, by
radiating heat away to the night sky, now it won't cool quite as much,
because it will warm the air instead.

So an elevated carbon dioxide level doesn't warm the planet up immediately.
It changes the balance of heat gain and heat loss over the cycle of day and
night, leading to the planet slowly warming up.

A higher carbon dioxide level, that makes an _eventual_ increase in
temperature of several degrees inevitable, won't show dramatic effects
immediately.

One of the favorite arguments of so-called "climate change skeptics" is that
water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that it
enters the atmosphere naturally as the consequence of a rise in temperature.

So the process is clearly dominated by a natural cycle, and there's nothing
we can do about it!

Well, not so fast. This _does_ mean that it's going to be harder to fix the
problem by reducing the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. Fortunately,
not impossible, since temperatures, and hence water vapor levels, aren't
constant; it's still cooler in the winter and at night. But it will be harder
to bring temperatures down because of that.

What, therefore, is certain isn't that any climate model's predictions are
correct; it is that serious action on climate change is needed as soon as
possible. It is needed NOW; or, more correctly, it *was* urgently needed *ten
years ago*, and it may not happen for another ten years, but now is better
than next year even if it's already later than it should be.

Unfortunately, it's going to be *much too late* to avert catastrophe if we
wait until things get obviously bad enough so that the electorate -
particularly when it's being misled by the oil and coal lobby - is willing to
support measures involving serious economic hardship to address global
warming.

So we're sunk, unless a bipartisan coalition gives the public no choice -
just as the American electorate wasn't able to end the Vietnam war in, oh,
say 1964, by voting Democratic instead of Republican.

Well, we certainly would be. Except that nuclear power means that we don't
need fossil fuels for full employment or the industrial output needed for a
strong national defense.

Oh, yes, there is a bad mistake being made by those wanting to stop global
warming. But it has to do with keeping environmentalists in the coalition,
not with certitude.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-02 20:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Chris Buckley
Please read the original NY Times op-ed and list all of the incorrect
statements in it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html?_r=0
Please explain in detail why articles like this cannot be allowed to be seen
by anybody.
Well, I'll list the *correct* statements in it first.
There is a temperature rise.
Humans are causing it.
The predictions of climate models, unlike those two basic facts, aren't
settled science; they're tentative, and new models may come along with
different predictions.
Those three statements are *all true*.
No, they are not. Your second statement, "Humans are causing it.", is
incomplete. The correct version of that statement is, "Humans are
causing some of it." Most of the temperature rise is natural. And, we
are arguing how much is natural and how much is man-made.

Lynn
Robert Woodward
2017-05-02 05:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Chris Buckley
because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.
The New York Times is a newspaper with a very good reputation.
So publishing such an editorial gives undeserved credibility to a
point of view that deserves none.
They wouldn't publish an op-ed claiming that 9/11 was a black flag
operation by elements in the U.S. government, that there are crashed
flying saucers in government hands, that the Apollo moon missions
were hoaxes, and so on and so forth.
Or even one saying that Darwin was wrong.
But they did publish an editorial about a century ago that Goddard was
wrong in assuming that rockets could work in a vacuum.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Scott Lurndal
2017-05-01 18:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Scientists-Are-Calling-for-NY-Times-Boycott-Over-11107895.php
This is the sort of behavior by scientists that completely contradicts
what many in this group claim science should be - that you have
an open mind and look at the evidence and debate. These scientists
want to shut down all opposing views and not offer any forum for those
people who disagree with them - they are boycotting the NY Times,
canceling their subscriptions, and urging others to boycott the NY
Times because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.
These are leading climate change researchers (Mann is one who has canceled
Well, Mann is an obnoxious fool. He doesn't define the category
"climate researcher" in any way, shape or form. Nor does he do
a good job of defining scientist.

That doesn't discount the physics of CO2 absorption in the
atmosphere, nor does it obviate the recorded increase in the
CO2 fraction.

I can easily find room to argue with Mann's reconstruction of
historical temperatures from various proxies, including tree
ring widths at the tree-line, borehole temperatures and
D2O proxies. Certainly, he doesn't accurately account for
sources of error when he claims tenth-degree accuracy in
his reconstructions of 1000+ year-old global average
temperatures.

That doesn't however, mean that one must favor fossil fuels
over cleaner alternatives.
Chris Buckley
2017-05-01 18:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Chris Buckley
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Scientists-Are-Calling-for-NY-Times-Boycott-Over-11107895.php
This is the sort of behavior by scientists that completely contradicts
what many in this group claim science should be - that you have
an open mind and look at the evidence and debate. These scientists
want to shut down all opposing views and not offer any forum for those
people who disagree with them - they are boycotting the NY Times,
canceling their subscriptions, and urging others to boycott the NY
Times because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.
These are leading climate change researchers (Mann is one who has canceled
Well, Mann is an obnoxious fool. He doesn't define the category
"climate researcher" in any way, shape or form. Nor does he do
a good job of defining scientist.
But the scientific community has strongly defended Mann's actions over
the years as being proper, including his efforts very early on to
deliberately stack editorial staff of scientific journals explicitly
to make sure that global warming skeptics couldn't get published.

If the scientific community wishes to be taken seriously, they are going
to have to abandon their "circle the wagons" mentality when scientists
get attacked. Mann is undeniably one of the very top leading climate
researcher in the public opinion; if there are problems in his scientific
pronouncements to the public, then scientists have to respond, and they
haven't.

Chris
Joseph Nebus
2017-05-01 19:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Scientists-Are-Calling-for-NY-Times-Boycott-Over-11107895.php
This is the sort of behavior by scientists that completely contradicts
what many in this group claim science should be - that you have
an open mind and look at the evidence and debate.
In a similar display of closed-mindedness geographers refuse
to even consider the argument that there is no such place as Budapest
and never has been.
--
Joseph Nebus
Math: What Is The Most Probable Date For Easter? http://wp.me/p1RYhY-1b2
Humor: Finger on Remote Control http://wp.me/p37lb5-1C1
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------
Scott Lurndal
2017-05-01 19:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph Nebus
Post by Chris Buckley
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Scientists-Are-Calling-for-NY-Times-Boycott-Over-11107895.php
This is the sort of behavior by scientists that completely contradicts
what many in this group claim science should be - that you have
an open mind and look at the evidence and debate.
In a similar display of closed-mindedness geographers refuse
to even consider the argument that there is no such place as Budapest
and never has been.
Well, take the bridges away and all you have is buda and pest ...
a***@yahoo.com
2017-05-02 00:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph Nebus
In a similar display of closed-mindedness geographers refuse
to even consider the argument that there is no such place as Budapest
and never has been.
I am reminded of a scene in the movie Shattered Glass which is based on a true story about a journalist who fabricated some magazine articles. Another journalist tries and fails to confirm that a "Hacker Convention" actually took place. At one point he says "The only fact that we can verify in this story is that there is actually a state called Nevada".
Greg Goss
2017-05-07 17:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by Joseph Nebus
In a similar display of closed-mindedness geographers refuse
to even consider the argument that there is no such place as Budapest
and never has been.
I am reminded of a scene in the movie Shattered Glass which is based on a true story about a journalist who fabricated some magazine articles. Another journalist tries and fails to confirm that a "Hacker Convention" actually took place. At one point he says "The only fact that we can verify in this story is that there is actually a state called Nevada".

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
h***@gmail.com
2017-05-02 00:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Scientists-Are-Calling-for-NY-Times-Boycott-Over-11107895.php
This is the sort of behavior by scientists that completely contradicts
what many in this group claim science should be - that you have
an open mind and look at the evidence and debate.
The point you're missing is look at the evidence.
Bret Stevens isn't looking at the evidence.
His argument is that data can't be trusted and that people can manipulate it.

Here's some of his earlier quotes
In a 2009 WSJ article no longer on the official website, Stephens said: “climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience.”
In 2011, he wrote that climate change is a “religion without God […] presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge.”
Post by Chris Buckley
These scientists
want to shut down all opposing views and not offer any forum for those
people who disagree with them
No, they want not to give air to bullshit.
They want not to give coverage to people pushing stories that don't fit the facts.
Post by Chris Buckley
- they are boycotting the NY Times,
canceling their subscriptions, and urging others to boycott the NY
Times because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.
These are leading climate change researchers (Mann is one who has canceled
his subscription) who are trying their best to eliminate all forums for views
contrary to their own. And there is no objection from the general scientific
community to them. Indeed, Mann has been trying to get rid of contrary forums
for decades and has been supported by the scientific community when attacked.
Look, I am a scientist by any reasonable definition.
Really, what do you do?
Post by Chris Buckley
I have also believed
in man-made global warming for at least 20 years. But I have gotten called a
climate change denier because I object to what the highly visible climate
change advocates have been doing in shutting down all investigations
(and funding) that they don't agree with.
And you have cites showing this?
Post by Chris Buckley
As others have said, this is not science, this is politics.
Can you find where in the op-ed there is any science?
Chris Buckley
2017-05-02 04:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Scientists-Are-Calling-for-NY-Times-Boycott-Over-11107895.php
This is the sort of behavior by scientists that completely contradicts
what many in this group claim science should be - that you have
an open mind and look at the evidence and debate.
The point you're missing is look at the evidence.
Bret Stevens isn't looking at the evidence.
What evidence isn't he looking at. Be precise.
Post by h***@gmail.com
His argument is that data can't be trusted and that people can manipulate it.
That's not his argument, but it's true that people manipulate data and
that you can't blindly trust it. Did you trust the data saying sea
temperatures were not increasing like the models predicted?
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
These scientists
want to shut down all opposing views and not offer any forum for those
people who disagree with them
No, they want not to give air to bullshit.
They want not to give coverage to people pushing stories that don't fit the facts.
Again, what story is being pushed here that doesn't fit the facts. Be precise.

These are top scientists who are trying to pressure the NY Times not to
print opposing views. That statement is pretty undeniable.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
- they are boycotting the NY Times,
canceling their subscriptions, and urging others to boycott the NY
Times because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.
These are leading climate change researchers (Mann is one who has canceled
his subscription) who are trying their best to eliminate all forums for views
contrary to their own. And there is no objection from the general scientific
community to them. Indeed, Mann has been trying to get rid of contrary forums
for decades and has been supported by the scientific community when attacked.
Look, I am a scientist by any reasonable definition.
Really, what do you do?
Research in information retrieval. PhD in Computer Science from
Cornell. Published over 100 research articles, including in _Science_.
Been cited more than 20,000 times. Served on multiple NSF panels
evaluating research proposals for funding. And you?
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
I have also believed
in man-made global warming for at least 20 years. But I have gotten called a
climate change denier because I object to what the highly visible climate
change advocates have been doing in shutting down all investigations
(and funding) that they don't agree with.
As others have said, this is not science, this is politics.
Can you find where in the op-ed there is any science?
Things about science in the op-ed:
That the earth is warming is undeniable.
Humans influence that warming.
The climate models are sophisticated.
The climate models are probabilistic.
The climate models are fallible.


Here's a fact for you: The current climate models are inaccurate, as
are the past models and as all future models will be. No scientist
with experience in modeling will dispute that (it's sort of the
definition of model - the mapping to reality can never be perfect).
The models now are much better than they were 20 years ago, and in 20
years, they will be much better than they are now (assuming present
trends).

Does that mean the models are bad or useless? Of course not. They reflect
our current best understanding of the multitudinous interactions affecting
climate. We will almost certainly get noticeable temperature and sea level
rises during the rest of this century (and beyond).

But the models will be wrong. There will be interactions not captured
by the models that will turn out to be important. (I don't know how
many papers I saw reported about in the past 15 years that purported
to capture new important interactions to explain why the temperature
wasn't increasing as the standard models said it should. Most of
those papers were at least in part wrong (given the temperature *was*
increasing), but that is science operating as it should operate.) We
do not have a good handle on the certainty of the model results.
Scientists can, and do, give error estimates for the factors they know
about, but the unknown factors are obviously more difficult! Sea
level change estimates in particular seem to be changing rapidly as new
models incorporate new factors.

The public does not understand uncertainty well, but they are not
going to learn by concealing debate and pretending that all scientists
agree with each other. The public trust in scientists is diminished
when they are perceived by the public as predicting something that
turns out not to be true, even if in the actual research papers they
correctly discuss the uncertainty, and have proper qualifiers. There
has to be some avenue for the public to see and discuss this uncertainty.
Scientists like Mann and the NY Times boycott proponents are hurting
science by saying that these avenues should not be allowed.

Chris
h***@gmail.com
2017-05-02 05:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Scientists-Are-Calling-for-NY-Times-Boycott-Over-11107895.php
This is the sort of behavior by scientists that completely contradicts
what many in this group claim science should be - that you have
an open mind and look at the evidence and debate.
The point you're missing is look at the evidence.
Bret Stevens isn't looking at the evidence.
What evidence isn't he looking at. Be precise.
Tell me what evidence he is looking at in the article.
Tell me how you ignore the previous comments he's made (in fact more that that you snipped them out because it doesn't fit your view)

Here's some of his earlier quotes
In a 2009 WSJ article no longer on the official website, Stephens said: “climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience.”
In 2011, he wrote that climate change is a “religion without God […] presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge.”

Do you think those claims justify concern about him being given a platform?
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by h***@gmail.com
His argument is that data can't be trusted and that people can manipulate it.
That's not his argument,
Then why's he bring the Clinton election in?
What's the point of that other than spin?
"People said clinton would win and she didn't so we can't trust science based on data"
Post by Chris Buckley
but it's true that people manipulate data and
that you can't blindly trust it. Did you trust the data saying sea
temperatures were not increasing like the models predicted?
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
These scientists
want to shut down all opposing views and not offer any forum for those
people who disagree with them
No, they want not to give air to bullshit.
They want not to give coverage to people pushing stories that don't fit the facts.
Again, what story is being pushed here that doesn't fit the facts. Be precise.
See his earlier quotes, ask why he's been given a platform to push his views which are not based on fact.

Tell me what future predictions have no uncertainties...
Post by Chris Buckley
These are top scientists who are trying to pressure the NY Times not to
print opposing views. That statement is pretty undeniable.
Are they publishing flat earthers?
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
- they are boycotting the NY Times,
canceling their subscriptions, and urging others to boycott the NY
Times because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.
These are leading climate change researchers (Mann is one who has canceled
his subscription) who are trying their best to eliminate all forums for views
contrary to their own. And there is no objection from the general scientific
community to them. Indeed, Mann has been trying to get rid of contrary forums
for decades and has been supported by the scientific community when attacked.
Look, I am a scientist by any reasonable definition.
Really, what do you do?
Research in information retrieval.
I'm not sure that actually counts as science.
Post by Chris Buckley
PhD in Computer Science from Cornell.
again probably not science (unless your research topic was something unusual for a Computer Science PhD)
Post by Chris Buckley
Published over 100 research articles, including in _Science_.
what have you published on?
Post by Chris Buckley
Been cited more than 20,000 times.
Which only matters for the claim to be a scientist if what is being cited is science.
Post by Chris Buckley
Served on multiple NSF panels evaluating research proposals for funding.
Depends on what the panels are assessing and why you're there.
Post by Chris Buckley
And you?
Haven't claimed to be a scientist.
(Have a B.Sc but have never worked as a scientist)
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
I have also believed
in man-made global warming for at least 20 years. But I have gotten called a
climate change denier because I object to what the highly visible climate
change advocates have been doing in shutting down all investigations
(and funding) that they don't agree with.
As others have said, this is not science, this is politics.
Can you find where in the op-ed there is any science?
That the earth is warming is undeniable.
Humans influence that warming.
The climate models are sophisticated.
The climate models are probabilistic.
The climate models are fallible.
and all of the scientists will agree with that but the probabilities are pretty damned high that they're a hell of a lot closer than the climate change deniers are accepting.

The slant on the article is along the lines as the "evolution is only a theory" creationists are doing.
Take words used in science and common user and use them in ways that people who aren't up with science misunderstand.
Post by Chris Buckley
Here's a fact for you: The current climate models are inaccurate, as
are the past models and as all future models will be. No scientist
with experience in modeling will dispute that (it's sort of the
definition of model - the mapping to reality can never be perfect).
The models now are much better than they were 20 years ago, and in 20
years, they will be much better than they are now (assuming present
trends).
Does that mean the models are bad or useless? Of course not. They reflect
our current best understanding of the multitudinous interactions affecting
climate. We will almost certainly get noticeable temperature and sea level
rises during the rest of this century (and beyond).
But the models will be wrong. There will be interactions not captured
by the models that will turn out to be important. (I don't know how
many papers I saw reported about in the past 15 years that purported
to capture new important interactions to explain why the temperature
wasn't increasing as the standard models said it should. Most of
those papers were at least in part wrong (given the temperature *was*
increasing), but that is science operating as it should operate.) We
do not have a good handle on the certainty of the model results.
Scientists can, and do, give error estimates for the factors they know
about, but the unknown factors are obviously more difficult! Sea
level change estimates in particular seem to be changing rapidly as new
models incorporate new factors.
The public does not understand uncertainty well, but they are not
going to learn by concealing debate and pretending that all scientists
agree with each other.
But the scientists are disagreeing on the amount of change. SFA of them are saying there won't be change or that there won't be enough change to worry about...
Post by Chris Buckley
The public trust in scientists is diminished
when they are perceived by the public as predicting something that
turns out not to be true, even if in the actual research papers they
correctly discuss the uncertainty, and have proper qualifiers. There
has to be some avenue for the public to see and discuss this uncertainty.
Scientists like Mann and the NY Times boycott proponents are hurting
science by saying that these avenues should not be allowed.
Except that's not what Stephens is doing.
(I'd also point out that in a country where 39% of people think that God created the universe in the last 10,000 year, 60% of people think that there was a flood in the last 10,000 years that covered all of the earth, 40% think that dinosaurs [not including birds] lived at the same time as humans according to Gallup polling is not well positioned to assess scientific evidence)
Chris Buckley
2017-05-02 14:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Scientists-Are-Calling-for-NY-Times-Boycott-Over-11107895.php
This is the sort of behavior by scientists that completely contradicts
what many in this group claim science should be - that you have
an open mind and look at the evidence and debate.
The point you're missing is look at the evidence.
Bret Stevens isn't looking at the evidence.
What evidence isn't he looking at. Be precise.
Tell me what evidence he is looking at in the article.
I already did, and you've already agreed that they were all facts (that there
is man-made global warming and that the models are inaccurate.)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Tell me how you ignore the previous comments he's made (in fact more that that you snipped them out because it doesn't fit your view)
Here's some of his earlier quotes
In a 2009 WSJ article no longer on the official website, Stephens said: “climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience.”
In 2011, he wrote that climate change is a “religion without God […] presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge.”
Do you think those claims justify concern about him being given a platform?
Random overstated opinions from an unknown context? No, they don't mean he
shouldn't be given a platform. Really now, they didn't deserve a comment.
If we eliminated all folks who have ever overstated their case, then 99.9%
of the stuff out there would be gone (Hmmm, at times, that seems attractive!).
If that's the criteria, then do you agree you shouldn't have a platform here?
You've made more obviously wrong statements. But I don't think you should
be banned.

Remember the context here - you have top scientists saying that their views
should not be questioned in the NY Times. Do you agree with that statement?
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by h***@gmail.com
No, they want not to give air to bullshit.
They want not to give coverage to people pushing stories that don't fit the facts.
Again, what story is being pushed here that doesn't fit the facts. Be precise.
See his earlier quotes, ask why he's been given a platform to push his views w
hich are not based on fact.

Once again, please tell me what he said wrong in his article.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Tell me what future predictions have no uncertainties...
Post by Chris Buckley
These are top scientists who are trying to pressure the NY Times not to
print opposing views. That statement is pretty undeniable.
Are they publishing flat earthers?
There are facts involved there. You keep on making the claim that he is
ignoring facts. Again, what facts did he ignore? You haven't come up
with a single one yet.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
- they are boycotting the NY Times,
canceling their subscriptions, and urging others to boycott the NY
Times because the NY Times dared publish an op-ed by a climate change
skeptic.
These are leading climate change researchers (Mann is one who has canceled
his subscription) who are trying their best to eliminate all forums for views
contrary to their own. And there is no objection from the general scientific
community to them. Indeed, Mann has been trying to get rid of contrary forums
for decades and has been supported by the scientific community when attacked.
Look, I am a scientist by any reasonable definition.
Really, what do you do?
Research in information retrieval.
I'm not sure that actually counts as science.
Post by Chris Buckley
PhD in Computer Science from Cornell.
again probably not science (unless your research topic was something unusual for a Computer Science PhD)
The folks at Cornell would certainly disagree with your claim.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
Published over 100 research articles, including in _Science_.
what have you published on?
Post by Chris Buckley
Been cited more than 20,000 times.
Which only matters for the claim to be a scientist if what is being cited is science.
Post by Chris Buckley
Served on multiple NSF panels evaluating research proposals for funding.
Depends on what the panels are assessing and why you're there.
Post by Chris Buckley
And you?
Haven't claimed to be a scientist.
(Have a B.Sc but have never worked as a scientist)
Your lack of knowledge about things you are debating is rather ... surprising.
I strongly suggest you look into what information retrieval does before you
stick your neck out any further.

...
Post by h***@gmail.com
But the scientists are disagreeing on the amount of change. SFA of them are saying there won't be change or that there won't be enough change to worry about...
And that means what? Where does Stephens say there won't be change, or that
the change should be ignored completely?

The calculus involved in the decision of what to do is
frightening. There will be millions of lives lost (mostly in 3rd world
countries) and quality of life will be affected for all if we do even
the modest actions agreed to in Paris. Millions of lives will be lost and
quality of life will be affected for all if we do nothing. We do not know
where to best draw the line, in large part due to the uncertainties in our
climate models. I get very perturbed (as you might gather) when I see top
scientists saying that these uncertainties cannot and should not be
discussed in public forums.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Chris Buckley
The public trust in scientists is diminished
when they are perceived by the public as predicting something that
turns out not to be true, even if in the actual research papers they
correctly discuss the uncertainty, and have proper qualifiers. There
has to be some avenue for the public to see and discuss this uncertainty.
Scientists like Mann and the NY Times boycott proponents are hurting
science by saying that these avenues should not be allowed.
Except that's not what Stephens is doing.
(I'd also point out that in a country where 39% of people think that God created the universe in the last 10,000 year, 60% of people think that there was a flood in the last 10,000 years that covered all of the earth, 40% think that dinosaurs [not including birds] lived at the same time as humans according to Gallup polling is not well positioned to assess scientific evidence)
And the answer is for scientists to conceal the uncertainties of what
they do? I don't see how that follows. How is that different from
trying to establish a religion of science, with the masses being told
"This is the dogma you should believe in; trust us"?

Chris
Madawc Williams
2017-05-09 08:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Climate change is proved beyond reasonable doubt. A small minority are giving cover to greedy industrialists and politicians who find it convenient to avoid the problem. Maybe figure it is others who will be hurt.

Anger at such people is justified.
Loading...