Which are you? Your rationale?
One possibility
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
89 comments:
We know YOUR answer.
Actually I added my answer, or one of them, to the post.
If a person is what they eat...
Then I suppose a person is only as smart as what they watch / read... :-O
Now as for my answers.
The Quote: "We live in a time when smart people are being silenced so that stupid people won’t be offended.“
John’s (ie G2A’s Questions):
Who here sees themselves as one of the “Stupid” people?
Or does everyone who reads this see themselves as “Smart”?
And those they disagree with as “Stupid”?
I am not sure if I see myself as stupid, but I try to read and evaluate topics with a fair amount of humility. My older self understands that most things in life are complicated, and that my perspective and knowledge is limited. And that being proven wrong is not a bad thing, it is just the path to learning and greater wisdom.
Years of correct evaluations and rewards by companies and teachers indicate that I am smart. However as noted above, I now accept that I DO NOT know everything and can not predict the future.
I certainly do not think my Far Right parents are stupid. They are some very smart people, however they have been making some very poor decisions and statements over the last few years. That is why I am so curious about how cult mentality works.
I judge your answer not by what you say it is, but by how you treat those who disagree.
If the people who disagree actually provide sources, proof, logical arguments and rationale, the discussions go well...
When the people I disagree with provide no or questionable sources, no proof, say "trust me" and changes the topic whenever they are stymied... It does not progress well. That is for sure.
Like with my Parents, I assume you are a smart person who believes some very questionable things. And have pretty much no real proof with which to back up those beliefs. Otherwise you would share it.
With YOU as the final and absolute arbiter of what is reasonable, supported, logical and true.
Republicans used to routinely claim they were smarter than Democrats. They often described Democrats as "low information voters". I think they got that from Rush along with a claim that Democrats voted out of emotion, not intellect. For myself, I am frequently accused of being stupid by Republicans. That is, by the way, something I don't dispute except for pointing out that claiming someone in a debate is a personal attack, not a response to the substance of an argument. And that always prompts the question, why is this person in the debate making an effort to avoid the substance of the argument?
Obviously, in recent years after nominating Donald Trump for president, Republican claims to intellectual superiority have become less frequent. It simply is impossible to claim that Trump is a smart guy without undermining one's own credibility. Trump campaigns not so much on the idea that he is intelligent or that intelligence is important, but rather on the idea that intelligence is overrated as a tool for governance or for understanding the world around us. This is not a new idea in American politics or politics generally. Throughout history, there have been politicians who campaigned on the idea that they possessed alternatives to intelligence, like "common sense". Dismissing experts is a very old idea in human society.
--Hiram
Jerry,
I have yet to find a commenter who agrees with most of your views or conspiracy theories.
- stolen elections
- man is not negatively impacting the earth's climate
- vouchers only have upsides
- Trump is a truthful and effective politician
- Obamacare was / is a disaster
- Social security and Medicare are terrible
- Other
If you could convince the others, then I would need to question my judgment. Until then you are a minority of one in this small cozy group.
I do agree that GOPers usually claim that DEMs are either stupid, emotional and/or irrational.
And I have never understood the desire to attack people instead debate the topic.
Though I do question what drives Jerry and My Folks to believe the cult's unproven message. That must have to do the psychology and group think of cults and their members. However I do not mean to individuals by questioning that topic.
I disagree regarding Trump... He has openly told us that HE is a GENIUS !!! :-)
And I have never understood the desire to attack people instead debate the topic.
Ad hominem attacks are useful in diverting attention from weaknesses in arguments. I noticed this in the Bush administration. George Bush was pursuing disastrous policies that were quite obviously disastrous. They were, stupid, based on emotion, and had no semblance of irrational, and they were refuted by facts in the most breathtaking fashion. Bush supporters were left with few ways to defend their policies, so they invented "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Since that time, whenever I see someone attribute "X Derangement Syndrome" to their political opponents, I identify that as a tell, an indication that an issue is being discussed on which the other side finds difficult or impossible to defend. As much as anything, that's why I make every effort to avoid that kind of charge myself, however sorely I am occasionally tempted.
--Hiram
I see. Truth is a matter of an opinion poll, and one must NEVER have an opinion based on facts, logic, and known science if it disagrees with John. Look at those who are the practitioners of "cancel culture." Disagree with leftist/Democrat orthodoxy one time, on one topic, for any reason, and you're out of the club.
Jerry,
You are always welcome to your opinions and beliefs. And please feel free to share them whenever you wish.
However people are not going to be convinced that your beliefs are factual / correct / rational unless you can provide a compelling argument and proof.
"Jerry says he saw that, calculated this, heard that, etc" is NOT a compelling argument or proof. It is just you stating your opinion...
I mean would you change your opinions and beliefs if Sean said "he saw that, calculated this, heard that, etc" and it was different to what you say?
Or would you say that he is wrong?
This is why I provide facts, data, information, etc to back up my opinions and beliefs.
And why I ask for the same from the commenters.
Now if your opinions are truly based on "facts, logic, and known science", then it should not be too hard for you to provide that detail.
I am not sure why you resist doing so?
I resist because when I do provide it, you simply dismiss it out of hand, in your job as Head Judge and Determiner of Fact. It's not worth my time. You somehow manage to dismiss even the most simple logic, such as this: Scientifically, the Theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming cannot be proven until the predictions match the actual data 100 years from now. You simply accept as unassailable truth that which you cannot possibly prove. But you are entitled to your opinion.
Oh, and dismissing out of hand that I "saw that, calculated this, read that" is calling me a liar. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but it tends to end any discussion.
You are correct that "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" can not be proven for a long time, since the Earth may respond in some way to start itself cooling again.
However it is very simple to prove that human activities and green house gases are causing the Earth's climate to heat and change. And you can not even accept this simple reality.
As for calling you a liar... There are many possible reasons that people doubt your opinions and beliefs. They assume:
1. you made an error in your calculations or made incorrect assumptions.
2. your biased perception led you to an incorrect interpretation.
3. you are cherry picking data to make your point
4. you are denying the cause and effects you don't value
There is a possibility that you are lying, but I do not think so. Like my Parents, you truly believe what you believe whether it is real or not.
Sorry, but I do not accept any of your more benign explanations for calling me a liar. You cannot prove that I made an error in calculation, or that I misinterpreted the real data (you simply deny that the real data is real). If I was cherry-picking the data, you have an obligation to prove that, but do not. And above all, you simply deny that I have an opinion based on something that I know-- in essence asking me to deny what I know and substitute your "reality."
If it is "simple to prove that human activities and greenhouse gases are causing the Earth's climate to heat and change" then DO it! And be certain you include the exact magnitude of that cause and effect. Nobody denies Arrhenius, but the Warmist cult wants to deny all other reality.
Jerry,
Over the past 13 years I have given you literally thousands of expert sources.
However your answer is always that you know better than the experts.
I am fine with that, you need to be you.
But if you choose not to prove your beliefs, then we will continue to doubt them.
And when you refuse to even tell us where and when the "election cheating" that you saw occurred... Of course we doubt your interpretation of what you saw.
Jerry: "Officer... "I saw Bob steal something."
Officer "Where and when did it occur."
Jerry: "I won't tell you, but you should just trust me and throw Bob in jail."
Officer: "Really ?????????????"
During this Ukraine crisis, I have been watching quite a bit of Russia Today, the Russian propaganda streaming service. Their defense of their actions, from an American perspective, seems cliched and just worn out. It's almost exclusively ad hominem. You criticize us for X, but what you did in Y was the same or much worse. There is almost nothing beyond that. In America, that works only in closed environments like Fox News or talk radio. It never survives in an uncontrolled media environment. But it as if Russians have no experience with that, it's as if they have learned nothing from listening to some sort of equivalent of Rush Limbaugh since the fall of the Soviet Union.
--Hiram
And yet it seems to work for a large portion of their population. :-O
Another source
"Meanwhile, domestic opposition to the invasion has been underwhelming. Protests have taken place in a number of cities across Russia but these efforts have attracted relatively small crowds and have failed to gain momentum.
While the courage of individual Russian protesters is not in question, it is futile to talk of a significant opposition movement until we see anti-war rallies attracting hundreds of thousands. At present, there no indication that this is likely to happen. Indeed, most Russians seem more concerned by the departure of international consumer brands from the country than by the war crimes being committed by their army in neighboring Ukraine.
Many Russians simply refuse to acknowledge the atrocities that have accompanied Putin’s invasion. Since the onset of hostilities, numerous reports have appeared in the international media recounting how Ukrainians have been unable to convince their Russian relatives that the Russian army is bombing Ukrainian towns and cities.
It is tempting to infantilize the Russian public and argue that they are simply being deprived of accurate information, but this is intellectually dishonest. While the country’s mainstream media is strictly controlled by Kremlin curators, Russians are expert in the art of navigating propaganda and can easily access alternative sources of information if they are so inclined. The chilling truth is that tens of millions of Russians readily accept the Orwellian lies promoted by Kremlin TV and share the sentiments expressed by the country’s pro-war cheerleaders."
"Over the past 13 years I have given you literally thousands of expert sources." And again, you are the Final Arbiter of who is an "expert" on any given subject. You ask ME to believe your expert, rather than the experts I trust, or the data I have, and even those things i have personally witnessed! I don't care how many of your experts say otherwise, I KNOW what I saw. I swore an affidavit in court. You believe I committed perjury? That I must recant so I can agree with you? Unlikely.
You consistently label my facts, experts, data and even simple logic as "opinion" but seem to have no opinion of your own other than what you find in some "source" somewhere. And by dismissing my "opinion" and simply asking me for my "sources," you do, I admit, save yourself the hard work of actually researching the subject and coming to your own conclusions rather than someone else's. Very hard, though, to have a discussion with YOU with all these Intermediary "experts."
Too often I find myself repeating things like this:
If it is "simple to prove that human activities and greenhouse gases are causing the Earth's climate to heat and change" then DO it! And be certain you include the exact magnitude of that cause and effect.
So rare is the response that is not ad hominem or tu quoque in some fashion.
Jerry,
I will keep trusting NOAA, NASA, Judith Curry, etc... And the actual science...
I will leave you to your personal analysis, Religious Right God's in Control, Economics and Political Science folks.
Again, you signed an affidavit... But you will not tell us where, when, etc this problem occurred. And apparently you could not even convince a judge that it occurred, since you have not pointed us to a court case.
I am curious...
What topic do you think I have not researched in depth?
Or do not have a belief regarding?
Oh, you have beliefs in many things. So do I, for example, I believe there is a God. Can I prove it, of course not. Is "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" a real thing? You believe it but have persistently refused to prove it. I'm willing to believe Judith Curry. She has a lot of nuance but basically agrees with me. Have you seen her latest? Will you agree with a real expert?
"Again, you signed an affidavit... But you will not tell us where, when, etc this problem occurred. And apparently you could not even convince a judge that it occurred, since you have not pointed us to a court case."
And sometimes you just write nonsense. You expect me to point to a court case that might make me a target of you and your ragtag band of cancel cultists. You believe that unless a judge ruled in favor of my side of that case, that my affidavit was a complete fiction. In other words, I am a liar and a perjurer to boot. This is the way you argue, consistently, and you just cannot see it as the ad hominem that it is.
Not sure who you have been reading?
"Is "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" a real thing? You believe it but have persistently refused to prove it."
Yes that is why we have courts and judges...
I struggle to see how she agrees with you that human activities are not harming our environment.
Though she does definitely is more pragmatic than the CAGW folks.
Well, courts and judges, who should NOT be deciding the science, have generally ruled that the CA cities and other entities suing cannot prove the harms that they are claiming will take place. And notice, as Curry does, that "climate migration" in the US is towards the warmer states, and that beachfront property prices are rising more than sea levels. Even Obama gives lip service to the CAGW idea, and then purchases a nice beachfront mansion for himself.
And I see part of the problem, which is, as usual, that you attribute some extreme position to me that I do not hold. Curry agrees with me because I believe, as she does, that the "CA" part of "CAGW" is vastly over-hyped and out of proportion to the reality, and that has driven us to solutions that are counterproductive even of their stated aims. "Pragmatist" is a good term, but to claim it you must first acknowledge that the extremists are wrong, quit arguing otherwise, and STOP demonizing anyone who takes a scientifically sound, less extreme position.
Jerry,
Denying that humans are causing climate change is "not a scientifically sound, less extreme position".
As Judith says we know that 8 Billion humans are harming the Earth, and the goal should be to minimize that harm while caring for the humans.
Unfortunately you and your cronies are unwilling to acknowledge the damage that humans are doing. Unfortunately that denial is delusional and limits the effort to make changes and improvements of any kind.
There you go again. you simply attribute to me a position that I do not hold, so that you can have an argument against the strawman you have created. You simply cannot allow that an expert you trust – Dr. Judith Curry –- agrees with me. Yet neither of us denies that "Anthropogenic Global Warming" exists. She contends that the MAGNITUDE of that effect is "A wicked problem is complex with dimensions that are difficult to define and changing with time." and that "Recent analyses from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that the extreme tail risks from global warming, associated with very high emissions and high climate sensitivity, have shrunk and are now regarded as unlikely if not implausible. Further, the IPCC’s climate projections neglect plausible scenarios of natural climate variability, ..." I contend that the mathematical proof is already available to clearly show that CATASTROPHIC AGW is not happening and is highly unlikely to happen except in faulty computer models.
She also says "The solutions that have been proposed for rapidly eliminating fossil fuels are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale." I've been saying that for years, and have either seen or done mathematical analyses proving exactly that. For example, the amounts of certain minerals that would have to be mined to replace all fossil fuels, just in Minnesota, would be a dozen times the entire world's production. Things like that.
And finally, the weakness of your argument is clearly exposed when you refer to "[me] and [my] cronies" as holding that same strawman argument. Sorry, but ad hominem does not and never did persuade people to your side of the debate.
Oh come now, Roy Spencer is one of the cronies you love to point to...
"On December 2, 2009, the Cornwall Alliance issued a statement called "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", in which they declare in list form both "What We Believe" and "What We Deny". The first point from each list is;
We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
Prominent signatories of the declaration include climate scientist Roy Spencer, climatologist David Legates, meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, television meteorologist James Spann, and Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center."
They are exactly right and you are wrong! But because you disagree with these people, or even their basis for believing as they do (a scientifically sound basis, BTW), you call them cronies rather than highly qualified scientists and thinking human beings. That is the category you reserve solely for yourself. But because they are saying the same things as Judith Curry in clearer terms, and what the actual data proves, you dismiss them as "cronies." That is argument ad hominem. Again and forever. Really, can't you do better than that?
If a "scientific" source relies on their "faith" in their God and its "Intelligent Design" for the basis of their "belief"... You are correct that I do not see as that as "science" anymore.
And I certainly do not see myself as an expert, that is why I listen to Judith, NASA, NOAA, etc.
I don't think cronies is that bad of a word...
Cronies: "a close friend or companion"
But I can say Jerry's and his Faith Based sources.
So, suppose I have faith AND science on my side, and they agree? Why does that make the both of them wrong? If you believe Judith, NASA, and NOAA, then why are you still holding on to the silly notion-- call it YOUR religious faith-- that CAGW is a real thing? Not even the IPCC says that. Is the world warming? Certainly. Is that manmade? Highly unlikely except in the 2nd decimal point. Is it catastrophic because of its causation of extreme weather? No, and even if extreme weather is more frequent (it's not), you cannot prove that such weather is manmade rather than natural variability. Read Curry again. After all, she IS a climate scientist.
I posit that this axiom rules our "discussions" here: "You cannot reason a man out of an idea he did not reason himself into in the first place." -- Jonathan Swift
Please note again... I do not know if CAGW is going to be the consequence of our poor choices.
The science is clear according to Curry, NASA and NOAA, the human use of fossil fuels is warming the planet.
The questions are:
- What to do about it?
- Is there a tipping point when it becomes self propagating? (CAGW)
- How many lives are lost/saved by do nothing?
- How many lives are lost/saved by changing our energy sources?
- Are humans that are currently alive self centered, or concerned about the needs of their great grandchildren and those people living in poor countries?
Given the size of our national debt... The kids and the poor folks are screwed... :-O
Please feel free to keep your head in the sand... :-)
Just a reminder... The Ice in our cooler is slowly disappearing...
You missed the essential questions: by HOW MUCH are fossil fuels warming the planet? Answer, about .0004%. The second question is, do the PREDICTIONS from the Climate Models, the ones raising all the concern, have any relationship to reality? Answer: No.
Once again, you have your own, totally unfounded, answers to these questions, and which cause you to demand non-solutions to a non-problem. And you do it by repeating nonsense, and by continually insulting people that actually know what they are talking about, rather than simply researching the validity of their arguments.
Oh, and if we take our Coke out of the cooler and open it, all the CO2 will escape from it. Imagine the oceans...
And I've got a bulletin for you. The Matanuska glacier in Anchorage has been receding for about 400 years. In nearby Glacier Bay, the receding glacier has exposed old tree stumps, obviously from a time when the world was warmer than today. One more thing: If in fact the glaciers are melting and that is proof the world is getting warmer, what evidence can you offer that fossil fuels are the principal cause of it?
This is a LOT more than a can of Coke...
And the rate is certainly not slowing down by any means.
NOAA explains it pretty well.
NOAA Climate Dashboards
SO?? I assume you are insisting that these observations prove something, but they don't. They do not answer the two fundamental questions I asked.
You say "the rate is not slowing down," but what IS that rate? Everything I see says the rate is somewhere between 1.0 and 1.8 degrees C/century, lower than the Paris Accord targets.
I have to assume you do not even look at my links by that question. :-(
8,000 TWh/yr of fossil fuels in 1900
40,000 TWh/yr of fossil fuels in 1960
140,000 TWh/yr of fossil fuels in 2022
If you do not believe NOAA and NASA, I am pretty sure there is nothing I can do or say to open your eyes.
Per Page 20 it looks like we are going to blow through 1.5 C
"I have to assume YOU do not even look at [your] links..."
"Changes relative to 1850–1900 based on 20-year averaging periods are calculated by adding 0.85°C (the observed global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 1995–2014) to simulated changes relative to 1995–2014."
Let me interpret. Between 1850 and 2014-- 164 years-- global average temperatures (in the phony-baloney surface record) rose 0.85 degrees C or 0.5 degrees/century. Any temperature rise BEYOND that is "simulated." That is, it comes from the climate models, and on that basis "catastrophe" is just around the corner. Of course, that is all crystal balls and chicken bones. The actual "simulation" is pure guesswork, telling us the global temperature rise over present, by 2100, will be between (including confidence limits) 0.2 and 3.8 degrees. That is roughly 1.8 degrees +/- 100%!! Heck, even I can predict things that accurately, e.g. my horse is likely to come in 4th, somewhere between 1st and last. You have just proven that the AVERAGE prediction from the climate models is over TWICE the historical temperature trend, and that even that is below the Paris targets. Every other supposed "risk" is predicated on the more extreme and highly unlikely (even mathematically near impossible) scenarios. THAT is what you continue to be concerned about, and you haven't even BEGUN to prove that correlation is causation w.r.t. fossil fuels. I commend your religious faith, despite your lack of scientific evidence.
"If you do not believe [your own sources], I am pretty sure there is nothing I can do or say to open your eyes."
Please feel free to deny what the experts at NOAA and NASA have clearly documented.
Unfortunately the rate of change is increasing along with the use of fossil fuels.
And that was proven long ago...
So using long term averages is pointless.
Make up your mind. Either NOAA correctly points out the correct conclusions from long-term averages, or it does not. Either the IPCC oomputer models accurately predict the future to something closer than +/- 100%, or they do not. Since they cannot even model PAST temperatures, they are highly questionable beyond that.
And you are still making these assumptions outright:
1. That Earth's climate is becoming "catastrophic" due to increased global temperatures (no evidence yet),
2. That total green house gasses are the principal driver of global temperatures,
3. That total CO2 is the major greenhouse gas, (it's not)
4. That fossil fuels are the major contributor to total CO2 (they're not), and
5. That fossil fuels can be replaced with "renewables" without disastrous economic, human and environmental costs.
I don't care who "proved it" (Usually Arrhenius gets the credit, in 1898). We've all known about it since at least then, and since then the laboratory work and math have been refined. We KNOW, for example, that CO2 response is logarithmic, not linear. And we KNOW that Al Gore tried the experiment cited and it didn't work. We KNOW the predictions don't match the data, so Warmists simply claim the data is wrong. Like you are doing.
Small Changes Can Matter
Well at least you are still capable of stating opinions with nothing to back them up.
Freedom of speech at its finest. :-)
Calling my simple logic an "opinion" is itself an opinion, That you blindly accept the long causal chain required to believe in CAGW is perhaps understandable, so long as your faith in such a ridiculous notion remains impervious to fact and logic. Which of course leads you to the continual ad hominem of us "heretics" to that faith.
Thanks for reminding me of the long reasonably respectful discussion we had previously, and not apparent this time around. But all I need do is re-quote myself here, and see if your OPINION has moved at all.
"jerrye92002 said...
OPINION? That old dodge again? Sources? It is up to those proposing a vastly different truth to offer proof before prescribing radical new political and economic systems based on it.
-Math is math. If you don't have the math right, you are voicing an opinion. Or a "talking point."
-CO2 lags temperature and thus cannot cause warming. Al Gore proved it, mathematically.
-Manmade CO2 is almost irrelevant. The EPA and IPCC have "proven" it with their computational models.
-The satellite data confirms it, with CO2 rising and temperatures barely changing over the last 20 years.
-The simple math of calculating the atmospheric fraction of manmade CO2 reduction proposed indicates that is true.
-The many scientists calculating climate sensitivity to CO2 (so-called master world thermostat, clearly erroneously) are all finding values lower than what is being used in the climate models.
-The only evidence of catastrophic manmade warming is in the computerized climate models and they are wrong, to the 95% confidence level compared with actual measured temperatures.
-The IPCC admits that long term temperature prediction is mathematically not possible. As something of an expert on computer modelling I say they are right.
-Current mathematical trends of measured temperature show that we are on track to meet the 1.5-2 degree rise "required" by the Paris agreement, without doing anything else!
-current calculations of the "alternative energy" solution show them to be economically non-feasible.
The Acolytes of the Great Church of Global Warming have one thing quantitatively correct. That is, 95% of climate scientists agree: the data is wrong!
Bring me some actual, quantifiable facts to support your hypothesis and we can have a discussion. Just the facts, Ma'am.
October 13, 2018 at 10:16 AM "
And I thought of one other thing, just now. It has long bothered me that the EPA and IPCC models, when asked to project temperatures based on ONLY specific reductions in manmade CO2, find somewhere between 0.01 and 0.37 degrees C over the next 100 years (depending on how steep the cuts and how much of the world participates) while the climate models project 0.2 to over 5.0 degrees of rise. The answer is that the climate models are based on a DOUBLING of TOTAL CO2, regardless of source (and high sensitivity). So the EPA and IPCC AGREE we do not have a CAGW problem, based on their models. How about you?
I am not sure who is still proposing or discussing "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming"? (CAGW) The situation where the heating become self propagating and continues unabated until humans are gone, or we change our ways AND we enter a cooling phase for some reason.
The correct acronym is AGW: anthropogenic global warming. anthropogenic global warming
And I guess I do have an opinion, since I am not qualified to determine what is happening or will happen. I believe that the scientists at NOAA, NASA, IPCC and Judith Curry are the experts in this field, therefore I will take their word over that of Jerry.
Now the question is can you accept their conclusion.
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
Here is another expert. "Koonin explains how the IPCC “consensus” estimates conclude that 'the economic impact of human-induced climate change is negligible, at most a bump in the road.' The IPCC says that a probable 2% annual global economic growth rate will experience only a 0.04% decrease in growth."
That makes you right, for once, that the correct worry is "AGW" and not "CAGW." But if it's not catastrophic and is in fact near-negligible, what do we care?
"I will take their word over that of Jerry." Will you take their DATA, even if I cite it for you? It seems you are the one persistently denying the science.
"... their conclusion." Who is "they"?? Either they do not know the science or are denying it, or they are simply lying for fun and profit. If they are saying that AGW is really CAGW, tnen they aren't even being consistent in their unfounded alarmism.
Well Koonin seems fine with the expert assessment.
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
He just says that "The purported climate impact of 4 percent in 2090 then corresponds to two years of growth."
And he does not evaluate what the growth would be if we invested in cleaner forms of energy?
Here is an interesting review of his comments.
And another
Jerry,
The economic impact is just a small part of the story, unless you believe people's homes and lives are less important than the US Economy?
I mean the economy grows when homes are destroyed and they have to be rebuilt. Does that mean you support destroying people's homes?
I trust both their data and their analysis.
No I do not trust you trying to analyze their data.
The "THEY" is very well documented HERE.
Post anything you want. Severe weather is within normal bounds. The reliable temperature histories show warming far below the "dangerous" model predictions. Some 700 predictions from the models have failed to come to pass; they are worthless as a basis for public policy. The Maldive islands are getting /bigger/. I will say it again, the only thing these alarmists have to offer is a non-solution to a non-problem. I can explain it to you, even prove it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Let me walk you through this one more time.
1. The source you just posted says the globe is getting warmer. The /DATA/ DOES NOT SAY what the cause is. Others who tell us the cause tell us it is "scientific" without producing that scientific evidence. It seems to be pure cant.
2. These sources that you trust implicitly say the warming over the last 140 years amounts to between 1.0 and 1.4 degrees, less than 1 degree/century. And we're all still here and thriving.
3. If you only want to look at data since 1960--60 years-- you find about 1 degree, or 1.6 degrees per century, and we're all still here and thriving. Even buying ocean front homes and moving South.
Now, you are going to say I am misinterpreting the data. I would like to know what mathematical legerdemain you will use to support that contention? Or are you just going to turn to ad hominem again?
Sorry, can't wait to get back to the original topic. Stupid people believe what they are told by the experts (or by the media). Smart people dig into the real evidence and make up their own mind.
"And he does not evaluate what the growth would be if we invested in cleaner forms of energy?"
Interesting approach to the question. I think what you will find is that growth will be more substantially REDUCED if we pursue the current forms of green energy. I don't have a cite, I just know that wind and solar are economically and technically impossible on a large scale.
But energy innovation? Absolutely. I know of several promising technologies, vastly superior in cost and reliability. Some produce fewer GHGs and some do not. But those alarmists who hang their collective hats on "energy innovation" are like the project planner that points to a box on the Gantt chart and says "and here a miracle occurs." Judith Curry makes the same point, that we should do what we can about the other problems while we wait for this "innovation" to actually become available. AND we won't need mandates, we will happily adopt it. Remember the Google engineers, after extensive analysis, gave up any notion of profiting from that "energy transition." It will happen, but not if we are panicked, for no good reason, into doing something wasteful that diverts our investment in the meantime.
Actually... The Quote is...
"We live in a time when smart people are being silenced so that the stupid people won't be offended."
The good news is that in America you are free to espouse your alternate analysis as much as you want. And I am free to disregard it. God Bless America !!!
So, you deny the science, once again. IF my "interpretation" is wrong, PLEASE tell me how YOU interpret the official data.
The statement is probably correct-- describing "cancel culture." But smart people should not agree to be silenced, leaving the stupid people to their delusions. The Climate Nazis have done a fabulous job of suppressing all contrary information, and when real facts come out, they simply lie about what the real facts "tell us." If you believe lies, are you smart or stupid?
I will never understand why you want to think so poorly of the people who work at these organizations.
But I assume you think you are smarter than them... Oh well...
I looked again... Who are the sources that you cited?
An interesting piece regarding Mali.
I look at these folks as being driven by one of two things-- corruption or evil, and I don't think they are evil. Look at who is getting vast sums of money from (mostly) government because of the narrative they have spun. Certainly at one time, the casual misreading of the data and the over-reliance on unreliable climate models might have justified a "cause for concern" (which is the IPCC's official stance), though not the hair-on-fire doomsaying by the sensationalist media or by power-hungry politicians. But now that the facts and data are in, they have found there is just too much money in perpetuating the hoax, especially when the major media are such effective shills that we have frightened generations of kids unnecessarily with this nonsense. Maybe the question should be this: Are these alarmists smart for creating, AND the general public stupid for /believing/, the Grand Deception?
Oh, and the source I have just cited is the chart of temperatures YOU have just cited, from "they." I hear what these paid-to-create-panic people SAY about it, but what does the CHART say, by itself?
I often wonder if you apply the same conflict of interest review to your preferred sources?
I mean we know the coal, oil and other similar interests have HUGE amounts of money and a survival level interest in keeping people fossil fuel addicted.
And the "experts" you usually note work for them as consultants.
I am pretty sure the NOAA and NASA scientists will get their funding whether they prove man made climate change or not. Not sure who you think is paying them off?
Sorry... But you reading a graph given your preconceived strong bias and no relevant scientific knowledge is pretty pointless.
The irony of course now is that Exxon, BP, etc have acknowledge man made climate change...
And you are still denying it...
Exxon Position Regarding Man Made Climate Change
Wow. The farce is strong with you. Government-paid scientists and climate modellers and the IPCC policymakers and the IPCC scientists whose paid research begins with "IF the predicted warming occurs, such-and-so will likely result" AND the huge subsidies and mandates for green energy, add up to at least $20 billion in US spending alone. The independent scientists (including those who lost their jobs for not spouting the lie) can't hold a candle to that level of spending.
And what do you expect Exxon or GE to say? There is money to be made from fools, and they PUNISH you if you do not take their money, so...
Sorry, but your MISreading of the clear evidence presented in the graph from YOUR sources tells me you do not have any evidence whatsoever that I am wrong.
And yet you insist I have "no relevant scientific knowledge." You are lying.
You certainly are not lacking in self confidence.
It reminds me of my daughters when they were young.
Often they thought they knew more than their teachers.
In this case you claim you know more than NASA and NOAA scientists...
Oh well...
And you keep telling me that I do not know what I know, even though what I know comes directly from your "NASA and NOAA scientists." If a NASA scientist predicted we would have more hurricanes, and that prediction was followed by 12 years with NO severe hurricanes hitting the US, what credibility would you assign to "NASA scientists" after that? Apparently your trust in these doomsayers, who haven't a scientific leg to stand on, is absolute. So great that our schools are teaching "critical thinking" these days. :-(
Jerry,
I'll let you explain that to the folks in California, around Lake Mead, etc.
Though you are correct that the changes are just beginning to be felt.
Oh, yes, "the changes." I noticed that it was warm and sunny yesterday, and today it's chilly and raining. It simply MUST be because I drove to church on Sunday and my car produced a lot (actually, a little) of CO2. Anyone who claims to see "Climate Change" today is simply engaged in magical thinking. You cannot POSSIBLY distinguish whether the /weather/ comes from a natural variation or is caused by manmade CO2. And now you attribute manmade problems, like poor water resource management in CA, to your magical belief that puny humans CAN manage the whole of Earth's climate? By very slightly altering the amount of a trace gas in the atmosphere?
Unlike today's schools that claim to teach "critical thinking," I went to school when we allowed to think for ourselves.
Here is a question for you. You read what these scientists say about the data. Then you look at their data and realize they cannot POSSIBLY believe what they are saying. So why do YOU believe it?
Lake Mead Water Level
Jerry,
Maybe your age has made your brain too biased and rigid?
You simply are not capable of analyzing the information impartially?
Well, let us put this as a challenge. If I am misinterpreting the chart YOU insist proves your point, please explain to me how you can possibly interpret it so? AND BTW, another word for "biased and rigid" is "RIGHT." Data is data and math is math.
I would not spend one moment trying to convince you of anything...
~13 years has taught me that your tea cup is full and you have stopped learning.
If you are unwilling to learn from the folks at NOAA and NASA, I will have no success.
"Once, a long time ago, there was a wise Zen master. People from far and near would seek his counsel and ask for his wisdom. Many would come and ask him to teach them, enlighten them in the way of Zen. He seldom turned any away. One day an important man, a man used to command and obedience came to visit the master. “I have come today to ask you to teach me about Zen. Open my mind to enlightenment.” The tone of the important man’s voice was one used to getting his own way.
The Zen master smiled and said that they should discuss the matter over a cup of tea. When the tea was served the master poured his visitor a cup. He poured and he poured and the tea rose to the rim and began to spill over the table and finally onto the robes of the wealthy man. Finally the visitor shouted, “Enough. You are spilling the tea all over. Can’t you see the cup is full?”
The master stopped pouring and smiled at his guest. “You are like this tea cup, so full that nothing more can be added. Come back to me when the cup is empty. Come back to me with an empty mind.”
Please, let me teach you something:
"If you are unwilling to learn from the folks at NOAA and NASA, I will have no success."
Will you never explain how the actual data published and supported by "NOAA and NASA" will not convince you? Facts are facts, data is data and math is math. Your "experts" are telling you one thing, that there is a "problem," while THEIR "science" says exactly the opposite. Are you going to believe the scientists, or the science?
Telling me that I cannot see what I clearly see, and what is IOTTMCO--Immediately Obvious To The Most Casual Observer-- is not going to convince me, cup size notwithstanding. Please, drink some tea, or something other than the Alarmist Kool-Aid.
Well I will try because I am BORED...
"Let me walk you through this one more time.
1. The source you just posted says the globe is getting warmer. The /DATA/ DOES NOT SAY what the cause is. Others who tell us the cause tell us it is "scientific" without producing that scientific evidence. It seems to be pure cant.
2. These sources that you trust implicitly say the warming over the last 140 years amounts to between 1.0 and 1.4 degrees, less than 1 degree/century. And we're all still here and thriving.
3. If you only want to look at data since 1960--60 years-- you find about 1 degree, or 1.6 degrees per century, and we're all still here and thriving. Even buying ocean front homes and moving South?
Here we go...
1. The fact that Green House gases trap more heat as their concentration increases has been proven for over a century. The fact that the concentration of Green House gases in our atmosphere has continuously increased as humans increase their use of fossil fuels is also thoroughly proven.
So unless you think Green House gases act differently in the atmosphere than in the lab, one of the primary causes for our warming planet is clearly proven.
2. Not sure what your statement has to do with anything?
Yes it has been okay so far... But the usage of fossil fuels has increased geometrically over the past 120 years. And the rate of heating has increased significantly over the past 50 years. And like my "cooler" on a hot day in the sun, our atmosphere will heat up ever faster as the ice melts and the gas concentration increases.
3. See answer to number 2.
In summary: Your argument is like the fat man who loves eating bacon... Even though his blood pressure is edging upwards at an increasing rate...
"I have always eaten bacon and it has not killed me yet... Therefore I will just keeping bacon even though the experts clearly know how cholesterol works."
There you go again:
1. I say "the DATA does not say what the cause is." YOU say the cause is the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels. That is flat out wrong! It may be true that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is, at least to some degree, caused by burning fossil fuels, but 95% of the greenhouse gases are water vapor!
2. Yes, CO2 has been steadily climbing as the earth comes out of the little Ice Age, proving What the ice cores tell us, that global warming causes CO2, not the other way around. And with CO2 steadily climbing, we still see that the temperature record shows long pauses or even declines, so assuming CO2 causes warming is disproven by the DATA.
3. And let us assume, despite everything we know to the contrary, that all that man-made CO2 is in fact heating the planet. Again, look at the chart! All of that warming, whether you want to count 140 years or only the last 60, if extrapolated over the next 100 years, is LOWER than the targets of the Paris Climate Accords! Where, pray tell, is the emergency that so requires us to "do something"? (even if it is the wrong thing and won't solve the problem)
Now that is foolish...
Insisting that heating is causing the increase in the concentration gases when they are currently far above historical levels.
Are you trying to prove me correct?
I will never understand your reasons for denying that the mining / pumping, processing and burning of trillions of tons of fossil fuels did not increase the concentration levels of green house gases. I mean that science has been proven for centuries...
It is so strange to me that any intelligent person would deny basic cause and effect.
We had very stable balanced system until ~1900...
Then humans introduced a new variable into the system...
Therefore the system responds by heating...
This not rocket science... :-)
Okay, LIFO on your comments:
You are correct. This is not rocket science; it is the most basic kind of science, starting with the Scientific Method. What You so zealously cling to is correctly called a hypothesis-- CAGW-- and per the Scientific Method we are roughly in the middle of the 100-year experiment that will prove whether said hypothesis is valid or not, compared with the actual data, the results of the experiment. Right now it looks as if the hypothesis is busted. It's no good. The actual data does not match the predictions from the hypothesis. And if we go over to some simple sixth grade math, extrapolating from known data, it doesn't look any better as far as proof.
"We had very stable balanced system until ~1900." Once again you seem to deny reality, and substitute your own. The long record of CO2 and temperature shown here:
correlation?
demonstrates that for much of Earth's history, both CO2 and temperature have been above current levels about 90% of the time. Just in recorded history we have had the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age, all before the widespread use of fossil fuels.
"It is so strange to me that any intelligent person would deny basic cause and effect." And presume cause and effect where none is evident. You still insist that the CO2 in the atmosphere comes entirely from the burning of fossil fuels, and that is far wrong. You still have not done the basic Fifth grade science experiment with the bottle of soda pop. If /something/ heats the 70% of Earth's surface that is water, CO2 will increase. Just that simple. And you probably ought to go back and look at Al Gore's chart once again, the one that shows that, for 600,000 years, CO2 and temperature "go up and down together." The problem is that CO2 always LAGS temperature, so the whole theory (hypothesis, to be correct) is not only wrong, but backwards!
"I will never understand your reasons for denying that the mining / pumping, processing and burning... increase the concentration of Greenhouse Gases."
I deny only those statements that are scientifically inaccurate, incorrect or misstated. For example, you continually conflate greenhouse gases with CO2, and conflate total CO2 with "man-made" CO2. CO2 is a small fraction of total greenhouse gases, and man-made CO2 is a small fraction of that. And you and your merry band of Warmists consistently deny that your solution of "renewables" is economically and practically impossible, while creating massive amounts of CO2 and other environmental damage.
"I mean that science has been proven for centuries..." actually, the greenhouse gas theory is not yet even 200 years old, and the main thing that it proves is that greenhouse gases are preventing "snowball Earth." The temperature changes we are talking about – 2° – are small compared to the natural, existing 20°.
"Now that is foolish..." agreed.
Well it seems you have found a more interesting source this time. Though again, he is a paid consultant / lobbyist. And even he agrees that green house gases created by humans are changing the Earth's environment. He just argues that it may be a beneficial change?
"After the most recent major glaciation peaked 18,000 years ago, CO2 levels began to rise in the atmosphere, reaching 260 ppm 10,000 years ago and 280 ppm prior to the Industrial Revolution when fossil fuels became dominant for energy production.
The most plausible explanation for the majority of this rise is outgassing of CO2 from the oceans as they warmed with a warming climate.
Since then, human emissions of CO2 have contributed to raising the level to about 400 ppm, a level perhaps not experienced during the past 10 million to 20 million years.
Since the onset of the Industrial Age, CO2 has risen by 120 ppm or approximately 230 Gt of carbon in a little more than 100 years, whereas the lesser “natural” increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm took about 15,000 years.
The increase during the Industrial Age is likely due to a combination of fossil fuel combustion, land use change, cement production and possibly outgassing of CO2 from the oceans due to rising global temperature.
This latter point is the subject of much discussion and contention but is not of principal concern in the context of this paper."
I don't know where you are getting your information and quotes, but it still flies in the face of known fact:
1. For most of Earth's history, both CO2 and temperature have been above today's levels, entirely naturally.
2. Even the IPCC says temp rise above 2 degrees/century is not harmful, and most scientists agree it is probably beneficial. The Earth's "greening" is beneficial and irrefutable.
3. The idea that fossil fuels are the entire cause of the CO2 increase is unproven because, despite the huge numbers involved, they are a tiny fraction of natural emissions (like the oceans).
4. And even if they WERE causing total CO2 to increase, the official temperature record shows that temperatures are NOT increasing above "beneficial" levels.
5. Any attempt to go beyond Greenhouse Warming to "Climate Change" and severe weather is contradicted by the known facts.
Other than ranting about what seems to be a non-problem, you keep insisting we must make a choice between doing the WRONG thing and doing NOthing. It seems that doing nothing is correct. IF we survive doing the wrong thing (report today of 150 bald eagles killed in one wind farm complex alone) and temperatures still go up, will we be happy? Compared to NOT killing bald eagles and NOT mining vast amounts of lithium, etc. (in China), jumping the price 5x, only to see temps more "beneficial"?
As always, I gave you the links. He seems to be the guy who created the graph you linked to.
And before man was on this planet, the levels may have been higher... But they are currently at the highest in the last 800,000 years.
Not sure why we would want to return this planet to its primordial hot stewing point. :-O Not sure us humans would like or survive that.
You worried about birds and mining... Now that is humorous...
The Eagle story is interesting though... Now you are going to be supporting Bird Lover laws that block businesses from making a profit... :-O
You give me links; I give you facts. Since nobody was around 800,000 years ago, or even paying attention as much as 400 years ago, the only information we have about CO2 levels comes from "reconstructions" using some sort of "proxy." That being said, the graph I cited is as good as yours (and maybe Al Gore's is better). And either way, it is all really irrelevant, because regardless of CO2 going up or WHY CO2 is going up, temperatures are not changing at any level that should cause us concern, let alone enough to severely disrupt the world economy, Condemn poor nations to poverty, and introduce a whole new set of environmental problems. You have decided that there is a "cause" at work here, but you seem to be lacking the catastrophic "effect" To go with it.
I take from your comment that you don't care that we are decimating bird and bat populations, and with it rampant agricultural damage from vermin and insects? May I assume That you don't care about vast scars upon the land, created by huge CO2-emitting machinery and the attendant CO2-emitting processing, transportation, manufacturing, installation? Why?
it seems to me that you are willing to accept almost any adverse human or environmental impact, in the monomaniacal pursuit of slightly reducing a trace greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and one which isn't doing any apparent harm and probably is beneficial. ( by the way, you should know that commercial greenhouses routinely inject CO2 to substantially improve crop yields, "An increase in ambient CO2 to 800-1000 ppm can increase yield of C3 plants up to 40 to 100 percent and C4 plants by 10 to 25 percent while keeping other inputs at an optimum level.") just Another fact for you.
I am not sure if it will be catastrophic to the whole human race, or just to all the poor folks of the world...
However, yes I am willing to spend more for energy and sacrifice some birds / bats to reduce the impact on those poor folk.
Discussing anything with you is pointless, since you are so illogical and flit around like a mockingbird.
First it is that humans are not impacting the concentration of green house gases..
Then your source states that yes we are...
Then it is more CO2 and heat is beneficial...
I think we will leave this one here.
Post a Comment