Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
20,411
327
93
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
This post reminds me of this:
The comic strip could easily be reworked:

Alarmist: The temperature is rising. We must do something!
Skeptic: Well, weather is either heating or cooling over time. It's not static.

Alarmist: We need a government program!
Skeptic: The government doesn't do much of anything well except waste money, distort markets, and bring about unintended consequences.

Alarmist: We must do something!
Skeptic: Like what? Every man, woman, and child in this country could reduce their carbon footprint to zero and it wouldn't make a difference.

Alarmist: You're a science denier!
Skeptic: You avoid talking about solutions. Corn ethanol was going to fix everything. Then giving money to firms like Solyndra. Seems like your solutions are nothing but scams. Talk to me when the government undoes all the fraud they've already heaped on the taxpayer.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Alarmist: The temperature is rising. We must do something!
Skeptic: Well, weather is either heating or cooling over time. It's not static.
Nobody here said it was. That's also a very deceptive misrepresentation.

Oh, and weather and climate are not the same thing.


Alarmist: We need a government program!
Skeptic: The government doesn't do much of anything well except waste money, distort markets, and bring about unintended consequences.
The government is capable of doing good things through regulation.

Alarmist: We must do something!
Skeptic: Like what? Every man, woman, and child in this country could reduce their carbon footprint to zero and it wouldn't make a difference.
And you base this assertion on what? That's a pretty much unobtainable goal, anyway.

Alarmist: You're a science denier!
Skeptic: You avoid talking about solutions. Corn ethanol was going to fix everything. Then giving money to firms like Solyndra. Seems like your solutions are nothing but scams. Talk to me when the government undoes all the fraud they've already heaped on the taxpayer.
My solutions? Refer to post 34.
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
20,411
327
93
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Nobody here said it was.
People like Al Gore have.


The government is capable of doing good things through regulation.
I stand by my statement that most of what the government does is fail. I see it first hand every day.

And you base this assertion on what? That's a pretty much unobtainable goal, anyway.
My assertion is that we have people who want to tax and regulate our economy into oblivion while conveniently ignoring the fact that countries like China and India are not going to sacrifice their economies chasing environmental unicorns.

My solutions? Refer to post 34.
What alternative energies do you think will work? So far what the government has put forth has been fraudulent.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
People like Al Gore have.
I have never heard Al Gore say the climate is static. Do you have a link?

Even if he did, he's wrong.

I stand by my statement that most of what the government does is fail. I see it first hand every day.
And I stand by my statement that the government is very capable of bringing about positive change through regulation. They've done it before.

My assertion is that we have people who want to tax and regulate our economy into oblivion while conveniently ignoring the fact that countries like China and India are not going to sacrifice their economies chasing environmental unicorns.
Just because China and India lag behind us is no reason not to make an effort to get our own house in order. Or, to put it simply, two wrongs don't make a right. And who said we needed to tax and regulate our economy into oblivion to get measurable results?

What alternative energies do you think will work? So far what the government has put forth has been fraudulent.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the corn ethanol was driven more by the farm lobby than by environmentalists. There was a claim that it was carbon neutral, that was before considering the energy required to farm and harvest the corn. Solyndra was a noble, but silly, investment.

Speaking for myself, I don't believe there are any convenient solutions available at this time. In post 34, I brought up Lockheed-Martin's supposed fusion breakthrough. That would be an incredible game changer, and our best bet to transition to cheap, clean energy without drastically altering our way of life.
 
Last edited:

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
20,411
327
93
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
I have never heard Al Gore say the climate is static. Do you have a link?

Even if he did, he's wrong.
The whole debate centers on climate "change", as if anything other than the status quo is bad and must have a government solution. I find it amusing that change is supposed to be all bad or even predominately bad.

And I stand by my statement that the government is very capable of bringing about positive change through regulation. They've done it before.
The government doing something right is the blind squirrel and whatnot.

Just because China and India lag behind us is no reason not to make an effort to get our own house in order. Or, to put it simply, two wrongs don't make a right. And who said we needed to tax and regulate our economy into oblivion to get measurable results?
I don't accept that surrendering more wealth and freedoms to government bureaucracy is "getting our own house in order" or correcting a "wrong." I've only heard of billions (trillions?) in wealth transfers from productive Americans to the politically connnected and from First World countries to developing countries under the banner of combating climate change.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the corn ethanol was driven more by the farm lobby than by environmentalists. There was a claim that it was carbon neutral, that was before considering the energy required to farm and harvest the corn. Solyndra was a noble, but silly, investment as well.

Speaking for myself, I don't believe there are any convenient solutions available at this time. In post 34, I brought up Lockheed-Martin's supposed fusion breakthrough. That would be an incredible game changer, and our best bet to transition to cheap, clean energy without drastically altering our way of life.
I remember seeing a program on 60 Minutes (or something similar) that championed corn ethanol. There were plenty of environmental groups championing it at the time. It has since been shown to be a huge net negative for the envrionment and for the pocket book of Americans. Yet it persists. Bad government policies are almost never rolled back.

Solyndra was foolish from the jump. If a plan requires government support because the private sector won't invest, what does that tell you?

I'm for any private sector innovation. If LM has a winning technology that would be great. How many other great ideas are delayed or stangled in infancy because the government siphons off wealth to crowd the market with fraudulent solutions?
 

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,012
171
73
Navarre, FL
Speaking for myself, I don't believe there are any convenient solutions available at this time. In post 34, I brought up Lockheed-Martin's supposed fusion breakthrough. That would be an incredible game changer, and our best bet to transition to cheap, clean energy without drastically altering our way of life.
Plasma Waste Gasification: a technology that is not yet common knowledge, but is currently in use in several worldwide locations, including several US Military Installations. High startup costs compared to a landfill, but very cost/environment friendly in the long-haul.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
The whole debate centers on climate "change", as if anything other than the status quo is bad and must have a government solution. I find it amusing that change is supposed to be all bad or even predominately bad.
The context in which the statement is used is important. This is how it is referenced in all of the scientific literature on the subject.

The government doing something right is the blind squirrel and whatnot.
My contention is that legislation to reduce our emissions would be doing something right. Much like preventing manufacturers from dumping poison into our waterways, or phasing out CFCs.

I don't accept that surrendering more wealth and freedoms to government bureaucracy is "getting our own house in order" or correcting a "wrong." I've only heard of billions (trillions?) in wealth transfers from productive Americans to the politically connnected and from First World countries to developing countries under the banner of combating climate change.
Surrendering our "freedoms" is sometimes necessary. Again, I use the example of poisoning our waterways or phasing out CFCs. Maybe even preventing predatory lending practices from the banks, for another example.

I remember seeing a program on 60 Minutes (or something similar) that championed corn ethanol. There were plenty of environmental groups championing it at the time. It has since been shown to be a huge net negative for the envrionment and for the pocket book of Americans. Yet it persists. Bad government policies are almost never rolled back.
The status-quo on corn ethanol is maintained in the best interests of powerful lobbies in corn growing states and ethanol producers. I need to go look up the position statements of various environmental groups at the time the subsidies were passed.

Solyndra was foolish from the jump. If a plan requires government support because the private sector won't invest, what does that tell you?
Do not disagree.

I'm for any private sector innovation. If LM has a winning technology that would be great. How many other great ideas are delayed or stangled in infancy because the government siphons off wealth to crowd the market with fraudulent solutions?
How many, indeed. I do not believe Lockeed-Martin is hurting in the R&D area though.

I'll have a beer and refine this reply. Just got home. Long day at the office.
 
Last edited:

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
I'm constantly amazed that supposedly-educated people believe this hoax.

The same chuckleheads who are promoting this crap are the same ones who were screaming, at the top of their lungs, about the coming Ice Age.

At the first so-called "Earth Day". (I was there; don't tell me otherwise.)

We can't predict tomorrow's weather, but we can use the same models to predict what will happen 100 years in the future. Right................

And when the same models, run in reverse, don't return to the proper initial conditions, the people who really understand science are smart enough to know the model is defective. (Some of us like to call such actions a "sanity test". I do lots of sanity tests, on the work I do. Otherwise, I don't believe it. Not about to throw good money at something that has no chance of working. Won't stay in bidnis long, if I do.)

(Wait.........researchers just say "more investigation is needed" when their funding runs out. Don't tell me otherwise. Been there, done that.)

Even if this crap was 1% true, what can be done about it?

Pretty much nothing. Do the math; it doesn't pan out. But it doesn't stop the statists from using this hoax to ruin our lives, and enrich their cronies. Both of which are also crap.

But, yes, let's get away from fossil fuels. Just switch to natural gas! So says Notzy Pelozi.

Go ahead and hang your hat on the likes of nincompoops like her. Really strengthens your already bogus argument.
 

BamaPokerplayer

All-American
Oct 10, 2004
3,089
81
58
Al Gore recently said $90 Trillion should help eliminate greenhouse gases and cars. Does the planet even have $90 Trillion?
As for the scientific community as it relates to Climate Change, they are the government. So to continue their funding, of course they're going to perpetuate the fraud.
Call the FED, we could have 90 trillion tomorrow.
 
Last edited:

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,012
171
73
Navarre, FL
Call the FED, we could have 90 trillion tomorrow.
That's absolutely true. And the simple act of printing the money might actually take care of cars without ever spending a dime of it on green initiatives. Only the super-wealthy could afford to own one. The rest of us would be hoofing it down to the quicky mart for a $200 loaf of bread.
 

BamaPokerplayer

All-American
Oct 10, 2004
3,089
81
58
If the government steps in to help with global warming it is going to be like Prohibition; doing a lot more damage than would have happened had the government stayed out of it.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
17,541
15
48
47
Birmingham, AL
We can't predict tomorrow's weather, but we can use the same models to predict what will happen 100 years in the future. Right.
The models used to predict a trend are not the same models used to predict a short term result.
Predicting the result of a series of coin flips involves simple probability, and gets more accurate the bigger the sample size.
Predicting the result of a single coin flip with any degree of accuracy would involve analysis of a lot of factors that average out over the long term.

Similarly, I could not tell you what Alabama's first play from scrimmage will be when we play Middle Tennessee, but I bet we win the game.
 

RedStar

Hall of Fame
Jan 28, 2005
9,628
0
0
36
The Shoals, AL
Why bother? It'll just trigger another silly one of these never ending debates. :biggrin2:

Every satellite is frequently being adjusted. When this Paul Homewood has a problem with the datasets of two weather stations why is he not discussing this in the scientific literature, where such debates are supposed to take place?

This retired accountant cobbled some nonsense together and, like always, Booker and the denialist blogs are on the hook. Looks like you have found your big conspiracy.
What's silly is when guys like you and Bamaro start spouting off facts like you actually studied climatology. What makes you qualified to talk about this? Would you tell a heart surgeon how to replace a heart?
 

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,012
171
73
Navarre, FL
The models used to predict a trend are not the same models used to predict a short term result.
This is correct.

Predicting the result of a series of coin flips involves simple probability, and gets more accurate the bigger the sample size.
Predicting the result of a single coin flip with any degree of accuracy would involve analysis of a lot of factors that average out over the long term.
The difference of course, is that in a series of coin flips, each individual flip is an independent event. The outcome of previous flips has no bearing whatsoever on future flips. Consequently, over time, average probabilities are borne out by the increasingly large data set so that long-term predictions become more accurate.

With both weather and climate modeling, future conditions are 100% dependent on previous conditions, which are modified according to the models' algorithms before being fed back into the model as new input. Consequently, errors are magnified over time by both real-world environmental feedback and model-induced feedback, such that long-term predictions become less accurate.

Yes - the butterfly effect. But not just the butterfly in the real world - also the algorithmic butterflies.

<EDIT>Also, in your coin flip analogy, we know the probabilities beforehand. We know that the coin is 50% likely to land on heads and 50% likely to land on tails. So a long term prediction of 10,000 flips will be more accurate than a short term prediction of 10 flips. With weather and climate modeling, we don't know the probabilities beforehand. The probabilities are in fact what we're predicting: 30% probability of rain or 70% likelihood of warmer temperatures. So a long term prediction of the probability will not be confirmed simply because we've added more data points. In fact, because the climate will be impacted by the feedback mechanisms discussed above, it is far more likely that our short term prediction of a probability will have more accuracy than the long term prediction.</EDIT>

Still, your point about climate models being different than weather models is accurate. Climate models are engineered for lower resolution in almost every way - lower spacial resolution, lower temporal resolution, fewer independent meteorological parameters. In this way, modelers hope to limit the opportunity for compounding the errors (discussed above - and there are always errors to compound) in order to push the time horizon much further down the road so that they can make a guess at what general conditions will look like say 10, 50, 100 years from now without the output getting swamped by the feedback.

Weather models predict specifics for tomorrow. Climate models predict generalities for next decade. That's the difference. And there's no statistical evidence suggesting increasing accuracy over the long haul, as your inaccurate coin flip analogy suggests. To the contrary, every point of evidence indicates rapidly decreasing accuracy over increasing iterations (and consequently feedback).
 
Last edited:

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Get your gear!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.