Well, I guess it's us

[Pointedstick]

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015- ... the-world/

[MachineGhost]

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015- ... the-world/

Naw.  GIGO and recency bias.  All those former Communist Sympathizers had to go somewhere, so they went into the Chicken Little Environment.  Same shit, different year.

[img width=800]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... e_plot.svg[/img]

[Mountaineer]

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015- ... the-world/

Naw.  GIGO and recency bias.  All those former Communist Sympathizers had to go somewhere, so they went into the Chicken Little Environment.  Same shit, different year.

[img width=800]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... e_plot.svg[/img]

Gotta go with MG on this one.  He nailed it with the GIGO and recency bias .... not to mention the government has to be in control and nature is not all that easy to control, so find something to control.  Thus, we HAVE to take ACTION NOW!  Or the world will end.  Raise taxes NOW so Big Bro can go on ever more spending sprees.

... M

[jafs]

What is that chart and where does it come from?

I've looked into this issue a fair amount, and have seen a lot of convincing evidence that climate change is real, a real problem, and certainly due in part to man's activities since the Industrial Revolution.

There's an excellent website called skepticalscience.com, and it addresses virtually all of the arguments made by "deniers" very well.

[dualstow]

http://www.realclimate.org/ Is a great site, too.
Only problem is, the data can make one's eyes glaze over.

[MachineGhost]

What is that chart and where does it come from?

Its ice core sample temperatures from Wikipedia.  If you look only at 1860 to date of course you're going to "see" and "prove" global warming just as you would have 125,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago, 375,000 years ago and 410,000 years ago.  Warming and cooling is cyclical.  Were humans around back then to "cause" it???  It's just a crony political agenda to install global taxes to entrench and enrichen political power.  That is all they know how to do.

There really is no debate.  It's GIGO.  It reminds me of the splendid galore frenzy after a dead whale sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

[MachineGhost]

Try Tyler's heat map tool 40% TSM; 50% 5-yr treas; 10% gold. Now slice & dice the 40% stocks and compare drawdowns.

The PP still beats it, so what's the point?

[dualstow]

I'll tell you, but not in this nice climate thread.

[MachineGhost]

I'll tell you, but not in this nice climate thread.

Post it over in the Resort thread.

[rickb]

What is that chart and where does it come from?

Its ice core sample temperatures from Wikipedia.  If you look only at 1860 to date of course you're going to "see" and "prove" global warming just as you would have 125,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago, 375,000 years ago and 410,000 years ago.  Warming and cooling is cyclical.  Were humans around back then to "cause" it???  It's just a crony political agenda to install global taxes to entrench and enrichen political power.  That is all they know how to do.

There really is no debate.  It's GIGO.  It reminds me of the splendid galore frenzy after a dead whale sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

Here's the response to this specific criticism from http://skepticalscience.com/climate-cha ... period.htm :

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

[MachineGhost]

Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

What is the term I'm trying to think of for a terribly sloppy fallacy like that?

Anyway, I'm guessing the above "conclusion" is a scare tactic about the "feedback amplification" granfalloon based on bogus computer models that don't represent actual reality (GIGO, remember): that rising CO2 levels raises global temperatures.  In reality, the ice core record shows that orbital changes FIRST trigger the temperature to rise and THEN about 800 years later CO2 levels will rise...  and vice versa in reverse.  There is no correlation between CO2 changes and temperature changes.  Whoops, don't tell all the ideologues.

[img width=800]https://i2.wp.com/1.bp.blogspot.com/_v1 ... 00x500.jpg[/img]

[jafs]

What is that chart and where does it come from?

Its ice core sample temperatures from Wikipedia.  If you look only at 1860 to date of course you're going to "see" and "prove" global warming just as you would have 125,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago, 375,000 years ago and 410,000 years ago.  Warming and cooling is cyclical.  Were humans around back then to "cause" it???  It's just a crony political agenda to install global taxes to entrench and enrichen political power.  That is all they know how to do.

There really is no debate.  It's GIGO.  It reminds me of the splendid galore frenzy after a dead whale sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

Here's the response to this specific criticism from http://skepticalscience.com/climate-cha ... period.htm :

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Thanks, rick.

I knew there had to be something about this at that site.

But, then, I also knew that nothing would change MG's view - in his next post, he posts another idea, which has also been addressed there.

I wonder if he'll even look at the site.  In my experience, people who act as he does about this issue don't bother, and continue to hold ideas that have been explored and discredited already.

Prove me wrong, MG, and go to the site and read the responses to your claims.

[MachineGhost]

Prove me wrong, MG, and go to the site and read the responses to your claims.

Oh yes, we're turning into Venus as well.  DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!!  Where were the humans that caused THAT one? 

Seriously, I can't be bothered wasting my time any more with the inside-the-box climate change alarmism (I've been on both sides of the fence).  If you think the doom porners argument against the natural and regular cycles in ultra long-term temperature records are persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt, then post something factual with actual data instead of deduction, supposition, infererence or logical fallacies.  Oh wait, you can't do that because no human was alive all those the hundreds of thousands of years ago in previous global warming periods unless you want to bring up the so-called lost civilizations of Atlantis or some such.

There's even less substance to go on in anthropogenic climate change than with vaccination safety.  Mounds and mounds of bullshit deposited by guests at a Mad Hatter Tea Party does not magically turn all that bullshit into...  non-bullshit.

How come we're all advocates of non-forecasting with the PP but when it comes to the ultimate level of bullshit in terms of forecasting, its unquestionably accurate???  All you have to do is simply use a model with false assumptions about how reality works and/or provide flawed data in to get the biased result out that you want.  I should know.

[jafs]

I'll take it that you haven't and won't visit the site I posted.

As I predicted.

Apparently we can predict some things with pretty good results 

[clacy]

Climate doom porn

[clacy]

doom porn has one big giant red flag giveaway to what its actual intention is.. if they say we are doomed, and then suggest the solution to the problem is government control, more government, regulate industry and economies, give us money to do this....  their goals are not humanitarian they are totalitarian..

if the above doesn't make you a skeptic at the very least, if not an outright denier you got to ask yourself..

if a bunch  of big menacing guys in shiny suits show up at your business door and tell you that for a monthly payment they will protect your business from harm, would you assume they were really looking out for your interests?

Exactly and when most of the data is provided by agencies that slurp from the government trough, it's very easy to get data that is cooked.

Government beuracrats want more power and control, agencies want more money for their budgets..... Everyone soon agrees CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING AND WE URGENTLY NEED ADDRESS THE CAUSES

[Mountaineer]

Doom porn, or anti-doom porn?

https://www.heartland.org/policy-docume ... al-warming

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/ ... cc-gore-2/

But, regardless, tossing the various appeals to authority back and forth will rarely convince those who have decided "they" know the correct answer far better than any authority.  On either side.  My perspective, don't get twisted knickers over things you can't control.  If you think your household use of energy is wrecking the planet, cut your use and do it now.  If you want to be an energy guzzler, go for it if you can afford it and if it is available.  Just don't try to control others and force them to conform to your personal concept of right or wrong, or in this case hot or cold - just love your neighbor - being loving usually does not involve force but involves caring about your neighbor's needs and showing them a better way if you have one - but, it is up to them to buy what you are selling, it is not for you to decide they must buy it. 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

I'll take it that you haven't and won't visit the site I posted.

As I predicted.

Apparently we can predict some things with pretty good results 

Wrong.  I've already read skepticalscience.com and don't wish to do so again.  It was one of the websites that managed to convince me for the arthro cause of global warming before I stepped back and looked at the REALLY BIG PICTURE.  I'll leave all the Mad Hatter hand wringing to people who need a political cause in life and stay detached.

I was thinking about what would be considered a smoking gun for AGW and I would daresay it is setting a new high that wasn't in the historical record.  We're a long ways off from that and may actually already be entering the cyclical global cooling period.  I wonder how the True Believers will deal with the latter if that indeed happens...

[clacy]

99% of the time if you follow the money trail you will have your answer to the who/what/where/why/how of any question.

[jafs]

I'll take it that you haven't and won't visit the site I posted.

As I predicted.

Apparently we can predict some things with pretty good results 

Wrong.  I've already read skepticalscience.com and don't wish to do so again.  It was one of the websites that managed to convince me for the arthro cause of global warming before I stepped back and looked at the REALLY BIG PICTURE.  I'll leave all the Mad Hatter hand wringing to people who need a political cause in life and stay detached.

I was thinking about what would be considered a smoking gun for AGW and I would daresay it is setting a new high that wasn't in the historical record.  We're a long ways off from that and may actually already be entering the cyclical global cooling period.  I wonder how the True Believers will deal with the latter if that indeed happens...

Well, why didn't you say so?

I'm glad to hear you've at least looked at the many refutations of denier arguments/data.

Nothing I've ever seen there argues that we're the "only" cause of global warming/climate change, or that there were never any possible contributors to that before we've been around.  The only argument I've seen is that we are now, at least in part, causing dangerous changes to the climate.

I, for one, would be very glad to be wrong, and to see some sort of cooling period.  But I won't hold my breath waiting for that.

It doesn't make any common sense to say that we can have 7 billion people (a huge increase in the recent past) on the planet, burning a lot of fossil fuels and polluting in a lot of different ways, and that all of that activity has no effect on the climate.

[Reub]

I'm old enough to remember when the same people were shouting that the world was coming to an end because of global cooling.

[MachineGhost]

Well, why didn't you say so?

Because I thought you were referring the to other site that rickb quoted from.  I'm too bored to read up on the whole pro argument again.

Nothing I've ever seen there argues that we're the "only" cause of global warming/climate change, or that there were never any possible contributors to that before we've been around.  The only argument I've seen is that we are now, at least in part, causing dangerous changes to the climate.

That doesn't match the doom porn rhetoric.  Nor the tax and control political agenda.

It doesn't make any common sense to say that we can have 7 billion people (a huge increase in the recent past) on the planet, burning a lot of fossil fuels and polluting in a lot of different ways, and that all of that activity has no effect on the climate.

It's also common sense that it's sheer arrogance and hubris to assume that anyone can come up with an algorithm that perfectly predicts how Mother Nature works.  Especially one proclaiming a 2F INCREASE == DOOM!!! as the output by ignoring all contrary data before 1860.  That's called hindsight bias.  It could easily be the other way in actual reality and my position is that it probably is, but due to systemic politicalization there will be resistance to continuously refine such algorithms to correct flaws that expose the relatively shallow effects of AGW due to career risk and government funding.  The track record of forecasting is littered with apocalyptic debris.  I suppose that like a broken clock, they will be right twice a day...  eventually.  But I doubt it'll be in my lifetime.

You cannot make a special exception that just because it is another field, AGW True Believers are not the same as Broker-Salesmen on Wall Street or Physician-Drug Pushers of Big Pharma, etc..  The golden rule about being biased depending on who pays your income and controls your education-training holds true in ALL aspects of life.

[jafs]

You're absolutely right that it's very hard, perhaps impossible, to predict things that certainly/precisely.

But, ironically, that undercuts the denier challenge that we're not doing that.  If it's not really possible, then it's not a good criticism that we're not able to do it, right?

I think there's a clear distinction between government and the private sector.  When tobacco companies lie and hide evidence that cigarettes are harmful, it's patently obvious that they're doing that in order to continue making large profits.  When government (because no private company will do it) does research on the climate, it doesn't look like the same thing to me.

But, we will probably continue to disagree, and shouldn't waste much time on this.

As I said, I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that I'm right, and am saddened that we aren't figuring out how to live on the planet without being a very destructive element.

[MachineGhost]

But, ironically, that undercuts the denier challenge that we're not doing that.  If it's not really possible, then it's not a good criticism that we're not able to do it, right?

That's a theoretical argument.  The True Believers ARE doing it and ARE acting as if it is valid.  Cart before the horse.

Have you ever read the The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World?  It's a Coming to Jesus moment from a former True Believer that soaked up all of the religio-ideological doom porn propaganda without question until confronted with actual facts.

It's fine to be sad about how selfish humans are toward the environment, but acting as if their actions were precipitating doom just around the corner is way too much like the little boy who cried wolf.  It's a masochistic streak that liberals seem to have in overwhelming numbers.  Maybe PS could explain why.

[jafs]

Not at all.  It's the skeptics who challenge climate scientists based on the idea that you have to know/predict everything incredibly precisely, or else it's not valid/useful.

Seems like a strawman argument to me.

No, I haven't read that - if I have time, I might look into it.  I've found skeptical science to be a very useful/informative site, and found their responses to all of the classic denier arguments very persuasive.  In fact, there are some common and obvious fallacies that denier arguments/data tend to fall into.

A quick search finds that author thinks overpopulation isn't a real thing/problem - surely you don't agree with that?  It was the first item listed in the Wikipedia article.

We're already seeing negative effects which are disturbing - increases in the intensity of hurricanes come to mind immediately.