by Judith Curry
Siddhārtha Gautama was a prince who was only told good news, and protected from seeing suffering and death. But he finally realised that he was not seeing the world as it really was, and so he left his palace to first take on the life as a wandering ascetic, and eventually to become the Buddha. – David Spiegelhalter
Dominic Lawson published an article in the Times (2014) Listen to Dr Drivel and you are sure to develop a condition. Unfortunately it is behind paywall, but this article is discussed in an essay by David Speigelhalter: A heuristic for sorting science stories in the news. Excerpts:
Dominic Lawson’s article in the Sunday Times today quotes me as having the rather cynical heuristic: “the very fact that a piece of health research appears in the papers indicates that it is nonsense.” I stand by this, but after a bit more consideration I would like to suggest a slightly more refined version for dealing with science stories in the news, particularly medical ones.
The immediate impulse behind Lawson’s article was a spate of studies claiming associations between ordinary daily habits and future bad outcomes: eating a lot of white bread with becoming obese, being cynical with getting dementia, light bedrooms with obesity (again). All these stories associate mundane exposures with later developing dread outcomes, i.e. the classic ‘cats cause cancer’ type. My argument is that, since we would not be reading about a study in which these associations had not been found, we should take no notice of these claims.
Why my cynicism? There has been a lot of public discussion of potential biases in the published scientific literature – see for example, commentaries in the Economist and Forbes magazine. The general idea is that by the time research has been selected to be submitted, and then selected for publication, there is a good chance the results are false positives: for a good review of the evidence for this see ‘A summary of the evidence that most published research is false’. There is also an excellent blog by Dorothy Bishop on why so much research goes unpublished.
The point of this blog is to argue that such selection bias is as nothing compared to the hurdles overcome by stories that are not only published, but publicised. For a study to be publicised, it must have
• Been considered worthwhile to write up and submit to a journal or other outlet
• Have been accepted for publication by the referees and editors
• Been considered ‘newsworthy’ enough to deserve a press release
• Been sexy enough to attract a journalist’s interest
• Got past an editor of a newspaper or newsroom.
Anything that gets through all these hurdles stands a huge chance of being a freak finding. In fact, if the coverage is on the radio, I recommend sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly saying ‘la-la-la’ to yourself.
The crucial idea is that since there is an unknown amount of evidence that I am not hearing about and that would contradict this story, there is no point in paying attention to whatever it is claiming.
I have been struggling to find a suitable name for this heuristic, perhaps with some literary or classical allusion to someone who was misled by only being told selected items of information. Perhaps the ‘Siddhartha’ heuristic? Siddhārtha Gautama was a prince who was only told good news, and protected from seeing suffering and death. But he finally realised that he was not seeing the world as it really was, and so he left his palace to first take on the life as a wandering ascetic, and eventually to become the Buddha.
JC comments: I just spotted this article that I put in my file over a year ago. There are several aspects of relevance to the alarmism associated with climate change.
Spiegelhalter’s point about science that makes it into the media is very consistent with a point I made last week in the post Which climate papers ‘matter’?:
More than 25% of the top 100 papers were published by Nature Climate Change. Nature Climate Change is clearly going for the headlines/altmetrics, with the unfortunate result that a substantial fraction of their highest profile papers don’t even survive their press release.
Analogously to the alarming medical headlines warning future bad outcomes associated with ordinary daily habits, we see alarming news articles warning of future catastrophes related to climate change.
Spiegelhalter raises an important point: the manufactured and enforced consensus on climate change results in an unknown amount of evidence that we are not hearing about that would challenge the consensus.
And finally with regards to the Siddhartha heuristic: Siddhartha was misled by only being told selected items of information, but the selected information was distinctly anti-alarmist and he heard only the good news. With health research and climate change science, we are hearing a preponderance of bad news. The motivations for the alarming health research is presumably tied to building reputation and funding base, amplified by the media’s desire for an attention-grabbing story. The climate change alarm is further motivated by building political will to act on reducing emissions.
The key challenge, as the Paris confab approaches, is to see the world – its climate and its myriad of problems and challenges – as it really is. And not to view it through a narrow lens that focuses only on climate alarmism and demonizing fossil fuels.
Thank you, Professor Curry, for your efforts to see past the veil.
The 2009 Climategate emails and official responses revealed to this retired academic a sophisticated matrix of deception he had lived in but never imagined possible.
FEAR of reality has plagued us since Copernicus first reported a giant fountain of energy at the gravitational center of the solar system in 1543. Nobel Laureate Marie Curie advised, in dealing with frightening discoveries: “Nothing is to be feared. It is to be understood.“
OM & MC: + 10 for her comment
Not connected to the University of California-Berkeley?
Oliver, I replied to your 8.49, but don’t see it. My only Berkeley connections are a short visit there in 1978 and that a friend was on staff there a few years ago.
It’s strange in a world that prizes diversity, so much importance should be given to conformity. Since the Sixties we have been urged to do our own thing, and now they’re saying that this is cool only so long as you think like the rest of the herd.
It is only through an extreme focus on INDIVIDUALISM that social and familial culture bonds may be weakened to the extent that programming is readily accepted.
As much as I love Rush and their work, I will never forget the image I had this weekend of 10000 people staring straight ahead, totally isolated from one another, receiving one of the most massively sensual experiences imaginable.
One must put up barriers to keep ones self intact
Yes, bedeverethewise, or have values ground in family, tradition and culture. Individual barriers have a tendency to stray, as the social engineers know all too well.
OF, see Marie Curie’s comment above. Conformity is the response of those who fear the world and its infinite variety and try (inevitably unsuccessfully) to contain it; as, for example, with futile attempts to control and manipulate the climate. Old Faustino
“The key challenge, as the Paris confab approaches, is to see the world – its climate and its myriad of problems and challenges – as it really is. And not to view it through a narrow lens that focuses only on climate alarmism and demonizing fossil fuels.”
The premise of the fears of climate change is not about how the situation is, but about the “potential” that it will become much worse at some point in the future. It seems easy to stoke these fears when there is no valid substantiation required to claim that more CO2 will lead to dire circumstances. There is very little information to justify the belief that more CO2 will lead to net negative conditions for the USA or humanity overall.
Belief in cAGW, like many religions and superstitions does not require objective validation for it to propagate.
Climate enlightenment would appear elusive.
The Budda is the example we must follow.
Well, I think the Siddhartha heuristic is the right moniker for a lot of stories I see in the popular media about how wonderful alternative energy technologies could be. Recently in my social media feeds I’ve seen enthusiasm about sewer or water pipes that have built in electrical generators, which seems wildly off-base for most of the real world (though there could be marginally useful cases using gravity fed fresh water supplies, I suppose). And I’ve seen much reposting about a 90/10 ethanol mix made in New Zealand from beer brewing, which was said to be capable of avoiding 250 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in a year’s driving (pretty remarkable, since the average driver on 100% gasoline could only emit about 6 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, and the 90/10 mix was said to provide only an 8% reduction in carbon emissions over straight gas).
The claim of 250 tonnes CO2 is here, with the same press release echoed on other sites: “If you were to fuel your car with biofuel over a year it would be over 250 tonnes of carbon emission you would be saving.”
You’re correct to be suspicious of the figures. The entire batch of 30,000 liters ethanol would only save ~55 tonnes of CO2 (or 15 tonnes C, to take “carbon emission” literally). [That’s 300,000 liters petrol x 2.3 kg CO2/liter x 8% savings x (1 tonne/1000 kg) = 55 tonnes CO2. ] I suppose it’s possible that Aussies drive millions of miles a year…or perhaps the spokesman intended 250 kg CO2 for one person (per year)?
As far as I can tell, not one of the many sites which published this press release questioned the figure.
Yes, the most troubling thing is the credulousness of the reporters.
I posted my own calculations in the comments on one article on a site connected to The Atlantic, showing a likely 6,500% exaggeration at least, and asked the original reporter and the Atlantic re-reporter via Twitter for their thoughts. But I haven’t heard anything back from either so far. See http://www.citylab.com/tech/2015/07/power-your-car-with-a-biofuel-made-from-beer/397946/
benatbou, I was once a journalist, the story was the thing, not the truth; I couldn’t accept that, so pursued an economic policy career instead. Though many I advised also found the truth inconvenient.
bentabou wrote on July 13, 2015 at 12:34 pm
“Recently in my social media feeds I’ve seen enthusiasm about sewer or water pipes that have built in electrical generators”
I was an engineer working in New Orleans for many years and in the process learned a few things about moving water about. Here are two:
A key characteristic of a successful drainage pump is the ability to pass objects up to and including the size of a large dog. Google “Wood screw pump”.
Down at you local sewage treatment plant you will always be amazed at the assortment of things found in the intake grates. In particular women flush the darndest things.
Any generator set driven by drainage or sewer water will need to cope with these kinds of realities and must of course be located near the bottom of a large vertical drop in order to recover much usable power.
I’ve looked over endless fields of canola in south-west France, all of it primarily destined to be bio-fuel in some green/government/EU-directive/subsidy fiddle. It was April, so the crops were in dazzling yellow bloom. All I could think was that the same people who are happy to see such waste would be hostile to much of the modern agronomy which makes such huge production possible. Meanwhile, the Golfech nukes down on the river were powering away, potent and consequently disdained.
Our Green Betters turn up their noses at anything effective and potent while rushing to praise any pea-shooter technology with vaguely green credentials, even if it isn’t happening yet. Especially if it isn’t happening yet.
How much waste of money, effort, heavy transport, heavy industry, fossil fuels, hydro, nukes, food, fertiliser, water, soil and space is needed before something “green” loses one star from Nanny?
Excellent post, something most of us here intuitively understand, but nice to see it explored a bit.
The skeptic’s life is a life of frustration. And anger. At least mine is. I was much happier as an ignorant believer. I wasn’t brought up as a prince, but until recently I really had no clue how corrupt our institutions really are, and becoming more corrupt all the time it seems. Or maybe I’m just becoming more aware. How can any reasonable person contemplate Hillary Clinton as President of our once great country without losing sleep? The mind boggles.
Sometimes I think we ought to fight back in a more grass roots way. Like a massive parade of skeptics marching down the streets of D.C. to coincide with Paris. There’s no doubt the numbers are there…Then perhaps a few highly respected skeptic scientists invited to speak. The MSM could not ignore such an event.
CAGW has become political. So in addition to rectifying the science, it needs to be countered with political and legal means. State governers suing EPA over CPP. Making politicians and their staffs aware, as Judith did in Lamar Smith’s recent hearing. It can be done at local levels through meetings and op eds. And it can be done by ‘voting with your feet’. My alma mater has been informed they won’t get another nickel until they mend their ways.
Paris COP21 will fail. No binding commitments, no $100 billion / year green climate fund from Annex one to Annex two. SCOTUS will rein in the EPA if Larry Tribe is any indication. Wind subsidies have been halted in both UK and Australia, and there is little chance the green ITC will be renewed by the present Congress after its automatic expiration. The tide is slowly turning despite the rigged system.
Spoken like the mature adult I’ll never be. I have the urge to kick ’em back, noisily and messily. Until we can begin to win over at least some parts of the MSM, the war is far from over.
Mosh hasn’t heard about MOD. We are still getting our residual checks from Big Tobacco and Big Energy is lavishly funding our nefarious, conspiratorial activities. How else to explain the fact that about 7 billion people on this planet are not losing any sleep over climate change.
Hey you forgot the 31% tariff penalty Obama slapped on imported solar back in 2012. I guess when the TIC is repealed that will level the playing field /snark. When you can’t beat their technology use the free trade smoke screen to force US consumers to buy over priced domestic products.
Here’s a tip. Buy your solar panels ASAP because people like Rud can’t stand to have Americans break free of the death grip of our fossil fuel overlords.
Having your own solar power is freedom most here will never get a chance to experience because Rud and his kind fear your independence.
“When you can’t beat their technology use the free trade smoke screen to force US consumers to buy over priced domestic products.”
That’s funny. The Red Chinese piratical mercantilists drive U.S. manufacturers out of business by flooding our markets with cheap junk produced by slave labor in hellhole factories that poison the environment with cutthroat pricing aided by a deliberately undervalued currency and some clown talks about a free trade smokescreen.
Q: Who is Solarworld?
A: A German solar panel company with a small subsidiary in the US.
Q: Who charged the Chinese with dumping low cost solar panels in to the N. American market?
Q: What solar panel company has been awarded the industry’s highest rating for responsible environmental manufacturing?
A: Chinese company Trina Solar
Do you work for them, jackie? Nice PR on their web page. They are dumpers. They get awards from industry associations by forking over the ducats. The MO of Chinese companies is to grab a dominant market share by cutthroat pricing, put other producers out of business and then let quality go into the toilet:
No Don but I am a shareholder of Trina.
I am struck by the similarity of your commenting style of venom and sarcasm that I see on coal company stock message boards though. What ever you do Don’t Slack Off! Keep it turned up to 11 and I’m sure you will drown out the opposition.
Have a nice day!
Why you getting so upset, jackie? Do you have a lot of money bet on a heavily leveraged and opaque Chicom company? If you had been investing in Chicom cos. a few years ago you would have seen me on several message boards warning the gullible neophytes about holding Chinese stocks. Of course I was short most of them. Heard of the huge timber co. called Sino Forest? It became See No Forest. North American investors lost in the neighborhood of 40 billion bucks on Chicom companies that were no more than Potemkin enterprises. Google “Chinese reverse merger fr@*d”. Those of us who did our homework did very, very well shorting that crap.
The situation may be improving, I haven’t looked at in detail lately, but you probably don’t know that Chinese companies are beyond the reach of U.S. regulatory authorities. If you think the audits are reliable, you are naive and in financial peril. I looked up TSL’s auditor. KPMG. It’s a local company that in effect rents the KPMG trademark. They are a separate legal entity governed by Chicom law. Good luck with that, jackie!
May I call you Donald now? I have decided to promote you from Don to Donald since there are 14 GOP candidates and 4 major networks that are going to make the name Donald synonymous with idiot in the next few months and it will be so much fun pointing out the similarities.
aneipris, anger is never helpful, it harms you more than the object of your anger.
rud, while some wind power funding has been cut off in Australia, the subsidies (and cost of electricity) will continue to grow for many years, and will increase further if the ALP regain government. The battle is far from won here.
Don’t get mad, jackie. I am trying to help you. I hate it when the Chicoms take advantage of unsophisticated neophytes who shouldn’t be allowed to handle their own finances.
> CAGW has become political.
Faustino, I read yr lead letter In ‘The Australian ‘ newspaper,
14th July. Good commentary on an uncertain future and the
futility of policies that seek to manipulate the future. bts
“Like a massive parade of skeptics marching down the streets of D.C. to coincide with Paris.”
The problem with your “vision” is that “skeptics” have many views and some are pretty nutty. The parade would likely have fights amoungst the marchers.
The truth is that the difference between AGW that is beneficial or not harmful and cAGW is has to do with the rate of temperature change and what other conditions change as a result. The truth is that the answer to the rate of change question is we do not yet understand the system well enough to provide a useful answer.
We wouldn’t even agree on the wording for the posters.
You will note that I say the same thing.
“The problem with your “vision” is that “skeptics” have many views and some are pretty nutty. The parade would likely have fights amoungst the marchers.”
a parade of cats would be funny.
We probably agree far more than we disagree on a varieny of topics.
yeah…those who cant…
1) bleat and moan that others should publish, when they themselves dont do so,
2) engage in the very logical fallacies they accuse others of indulging in, and
3) associate themselves with organizations that leech off the good name of the flagship UC school, while having nothing whatsoever to do that school at all. thats cool, really cool Mosh.
Hey I worked at Harvard University…Harvard University car wash that is.
theres that Mosh. Theres that.
“Like a massive parade of skeptics marching down the streets of D.C. ”
you cant even do your damn science.
U got zero organization, no funding, and no coherent message.
Mosher, “you cant even do your damn science.
U got zero organization, no funding, and no coherent message.
Are u suggesting Curry, Spencer, Pielke, Lindzen, SMi, and many others can’t do their own science? What a schmuck u are. For all your arrogance, you couldn’t even make author on BEST in an obscure journal.
Let’s not disparage Mosher’s cred unfairly. I recall that Mosher was a named author on two or three papers in that obscure pay for play journal of last resort. BEST got several papers published in the old G&G.
“Are u suggesting Curry, Spencer, Pielke, Lindzen, SMi, and many others can’t do their own science?”
No, in fact I am suggesting that commenters comment less and do their own damn science…
Nic Lewis started as a commenter..
Willis started as a commenter
I’m suggesting that rather than march in a parade that commenters should do their own damn science. and that if they cant organize to do the latter they probably cant pull off the former.
Anthony Watts showed you how to do science, So did steve mcintyre, and Jeffid, troy masters, Nic Lewis.. heck now even Monkton and Briggs.
THOSE are the examples you should follow.
mosh: what science do you do, exactly?
besides being the public face of berkley earth science, which BTW is totally unaffiliated with USB, what do you actually do?
The group you are affiliated with has as much to do with U.C. Berkley as Princeton Review has to do with Princeton… which is nothing, as it turns out.
A bachelor’s degree in english, and some facility with R makes you a what?
a paid shill?
a pissante critic?
the answer is, apparently, yes.
that would be UCB, sorry mosh.
“mosh: what science do you do, exactly?”
ah wait, avoiding fallacies is an art.
do your own damn art.
Mosher, “No, in fact I am suggesting that commenters comment less and do their own damn science…”
Most of us that don’t participate in doing the science, comment very little. You see Steve, some of us don’t have the luxury of sitting in SF cafes sipping a pinot grigio while contemplating how to perpetuate doom and gloom on guvment money. Some of us “commenters” actually have full time professional jobs but somehow how find a few minutes each day to glance at various blogs because the subject matter is of interest to us. You want us to comment less? Only an arrogant schmuck would suggest that. Publish more, loose the arrogance.
cap6097 and davideisenstadt
arrogant schmuck is an apt description of what the man from Best is
the argument of a fool and shill. It is you, not I who maintaied that publishing in peer reviewed journals was the mark of a scientist.
You dont even have a handle on rhetoric Mosh.
Mountains of “publish! thats what scientists do: publish!
condescension, dismissal, equivocation, snarky, self aggrandizing posts, over and over again….and in the end?
two at most, probably one, citation.
I put my own qualifications out at the front..I taught college level statistics for a decade or so. That entitles me to comment on statistical malfeasance of the degree that would cause a second semester student to fail a class.
Post hoc screening…inverting proxies…non centered PCA these are the mark of poseurs, not scientists.
If you weren’t such a prat about people publishing, it wouldn’t really be germane..But since you hold that it has such value, it is only appropriate that you yourself are judged by the standards you created. As such you fall short.
“Tu quoque” indeed…you accuse others of doing precisely what you do.
and you aren’t even aware that you do it.
its sad really.
In the meantime, you could of course choose to answer the question.
“the argument of a fool and shill. It is you, not I who maintaied that publishing in peer reviewed journals was the mark of a scientist.”
quite the opposite.
I suggested folks do their own damn science.
How when and where you choose to publish.. meh.. not as critical
“You see Steve, some of us don’t have the luxury of sitting in SF cafes sipping a pinot grigio while contemplating how to perpetuate doom and gloom on guvment money.
a) I am not in SF
b) I never visit cafes
c) I never drink wine
d) I dont collect government money
Some of us “commenters” actually have full time professional jobs but somehow how find a few minutes each day to glance at various blogs because the subject matter is of interest to us.
a) me too,
“I put my own qualifications out at the front..I taught college level statistics for a decade or so. That entitles me to comment on statistical malfeasance of the degree that would cause a second semester student to fail a class.”
anyone can comment.
I’m sure Mann taught classes too.
those that can do…. those that can’t……well there you go.
Everyone gets the same 24/7. The working professional who plead “no-time” to do real work in off-hours is just a cowardly excuse. All non-volunteers and non-hackers use it, implying that those who seriously contribute during “spare time” are some-how lazy. It’s projection of their impotence railing against the superior vitality of the virile person of action.
TR said it best “In the arena”
Appeal to the lack of education is the first defense of incompetent bureaucrats.
I believe Mosh cut his hair and lost some weight scince he got married? Also I agree with Willis he is a scientist!
Willis is in the same boat. No PhD, no professional employment as a scientist, yet desperately wants to be called a scientist. Desperately wants to be taken as seriously as real scientists. So he bestows the moniker on unqualified others. When we’re all “scientists” it belittles the title for those who’ve actually done the hard work to earn it. It’s a disgusting display of personal aggrandizement and an insult to real scientists everywhere. And it pisses me off.
What he meant to write:
Some of us full-time “commenters” actually have full time professional jobs and somehow find a few minutes each day for our employers in between posting at various blogs because our salary is of interest to us.
Fixed that for ya!
By the way. What’s up with “Business Data Specialist” at https://www.1800radiator.com/ ? Following tradition shouldn’t that be something like “Head Scientist in Charge” (HSIC), Founder and CEO, or at least Vice President of Marketing and Sales?
Learn to be humble. Stop calling yourself a scientist when you’ve not done the hard work to earn the title. Be honest. Maybe join a church.
Horst if I were you I’d use a made-up name too. Dipschit.
Mosh. your protests are lame…of course, youre the one who wrote that scientists “dont deal with probabilities”, ignoring the entire corpus of work done by post classicial physicists…One supposes that you didnt take that elective in QM, eh?
Look Mosh, i appreciate the work you did on your blog years ago, which helped me to learn R…
I appreciate how difficult it must have been to translate your knowledge in and mastery of english into a career in technology, and I can also appreciate how cool it must be to work for a group that has the noun “Berkely” in its title.
But really Mosh, when it comes out that there is no nexus whatsoever with UCB, dontcha….cringe just a little?
Both Willis and Mosher are numerate and occasionally shed insightful light on the data. Works for me.
Mosher, FWIW I respect you, as much as you can respect someone on the basis of blog comments. For all I know in person you’re insufferable and have halitosis besides. But you’re arrogant, and like all arrogant people are often spectacularly wrong. I’m almost sure that given the chance to stick it to the man,, long suffering skeptics would turn out by the thousands. What’s needed is a leader. When skeptics are asked to dig into their pockets I see nothing but generosity. As to coherent message I’d start with “the debate is only beginning. ” it’s on point, yet general enough to be acceptable to all. .
” I suggested folks do their own damn science.”
“How when and where you choose to publish.. meh.. not as critical”
Now which is it, “publish” or “meh”
Technically it is, plus I am, and it was used as a proof of concept for what later turned out to be a multi billion dollar global business.
David Springer, does that count?
“Does that count?”
Not enough information. If you don’t have a PhD in science or equivalent professional experience then I wouldn’t characterize you as a scientist.
Here’s an example of an amateur scientist. A friend of mine Forrest Mims:
If anyone in the world has done enough to earn the title without a relevant PhD it’s this guy. Mosher hasn’t remotely near the scientific chops as Mims.
I’ve done research in industry, but mostly electrical engineering type work, I am pretty skilled in astrophotography, and my family and some of my bosses would likely say I act like a scientist, and I’ve been doing my own science with surface temperature records, and lastly I don’t think much of intelligent design.
> Are u suggesting Curry, Spencer, Pielke, Lindzen, SMi, and many others can’t do their own science?
Are you suggesting Judy, Dick, and Senior don’t believe in AGW, Micro?
You can have Roy if you want, even if he insists in saying he’s part of the consensus.
Why would you think I said any such thing?
> Why would you think I said any such thing?
No idea, unless you’re the new puppet, who implied it with his rhetorical question in response to “U got zero organization, no funding, and no coherent message.”
And since you throw yourself in front of him, no, engineering ain’t science.
Hmm, your name isn’t David is it, I wasn’t talking to you.
And I know Engineering isn’t Science, which is why I went on to provide other examples while pointing out I mostly did Engineering work. See how that works?
No, James Earl Jones.
> your name isn’t David is it
You quoted me, not David.
> other examples
No theory, no science. Simple.
No, I originally quoted Mosh, and replied to a comment from David. Who replied to my comment, which replied to, that you quoted. Which I replied to, and noted I wasn’t talking to you in my original comment.
No, I was providing evidence against the theory of AGW, and that Co2 reduced cooling causing surface warming.
My other scientific work was related to collecting evidence, and extending applied science, which was published, and then used as supporting evidence that later became a multi-billion dollar industry.
Do you have anything useful to say? All I ever see are convoluted twisting around of other peoples words (ie word games, like this conversation) and links to other peoples work, I suppose someone has to do it, but it is tiresome.
I see what happened.
You quoted cap6097, but then it looks like you addressed your question to me.
Here’s some science, this image
was taken by me with my telescope in my driveway, the Yellow giant in the center has a companion Blackhole.
I have a couple before and during supernova’s, but it’s my first blackhole.
> Here’s some science,
Here’s how to interject a comment.
Here’s a link to Eli’s 2006 post on amateur scientists:
Committing observations is good. However, it’s not enough for science to make. One needs a theory, or better a whole network of theories.
Letting the observations “speak for themselves” (so to speak; in Siri’s voice or any otter’s) just ain’t enough.
Which was why I included the requests for observations from scientists for other scientists to execute on.
Unless those observations challenge a proposed theory.
Although consensus or not it’s better described as a hypotheses.
So my observations would be better described as empirical evidences refuting the hypotheses. Actually I guess my hypotheses is that heat stored in the Oceans become self-organized collections of warm water pools that influence global temperatures and Arctic Ice.
There, a hypotheses.
> I see what happened.
> You quoted cap6097, but then it looks like you addressed your question to me.
It looks so because you use WP’s facility to interject comments.
That’s one reason why I quote to what I’m responding to.
> Do you have anything useful to say?
Your “I see what happened” proves I can. I can also add that one does not simply brag too much about one’s qualifications behind a pseudo and expect to be genuflexed in Mordor.
If that’s not enough, I could also add that your
would need to be supplemented with an alternative tjheory to explain the evidence you allege to have collected. That you once upon a time the master mind behind a multi-dollar industry is duly acknowledged, but that does not count as an alternative theory to AGW.
No theory, no science. Simple.
My pseudo in the text you posted was not an artifact of WordPress, you posed your question directly to me.
I didn’t ask you to genuflex, I was responding to David’s comment regarding what qualifies as a amateur scientist, so it wasn’t really bragging, more a response to a statement on qualifications by providing my qualifications, and I mention the industry because it was based on my published paper, again referenced as a qualification.
So says the guy with the pseudo name complaining about pseudo names, BTW the only well known Willard is a rat or a weatherman.
Oh and Mi Cro is my name, it’s just not spelled that way.
> you posed your question directly to me.
No, I questioned this claim:
and you’re not the one who proferred it, Micro.
> it was based on my published paper
Sure, and I’m a ninja.
> So says [no theory, no science] the guy with the pseudo name complaining about pseudo names,
This ad hom is incorrect, since I could not care less if you’re using a pseudo, Micro. My argument was rather that one does not argue from authority when using a pseudonym. Big Dave’s argument is invalid, BTW, but that’s another issue.
If you don’t have an alternative theory to AGW, then collecting inconvenient voiceful evidence ain’t science, whether you are a million dollar guy, the ghost of Richard Feynman, or just another Internet dog.
Then why did you address it to me? See this was also a question addressed to me, and I’m responding to your question. See how this works?
What do I need to provide a resume now if I have something to contribute?
There are a number of alternative Theories on why surface temps are warmer than expected, I don’t have a compelling argument as to which one is the correct one, I do have compelling evidence that the Theory of AGW is not correct, how else does science move forward in selecting the more correct theory without compelling evidence?
Curiously as soon as I posted the previous reply I went back to reading Judith’s next post http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/15/decision-strategies-for-uncertain-complex-situations/
and found this.
> Then why did you address it to me?
Because that’s the freaking question that helps put the stakes in the sand, Micro. If you don’t commit on this, how do you contradict Moshpit’s “U got zero organization, no funding, and no coherent message”: by claiming that you do?
You and which army?
> What do I need to provide a resume now if I have something to contribute?
Another strawman. If you claim to have a million dollar resume, why the hell wouldn’t you need to provide it? If you claim that what you do stands on its own, you don’t need a resume.
See? You make a claim, you back it up. It’s quite simple, really.
> how else does science move forward in selecting the more correct theory without compelling evidence?
Scientists try to find the best explanation they can find for the observed phenomena, considering the overall network of theories they must work with. (Look for “epistemological holism”.) AGW stays on the table as long as nothing better comes forth. Some call it “argument to the best explanation.” Some others call it “abductive reasoning.”
You don’t have an alternative to AGW, you don’t do science. You’re just another engineer who pretends having refuted AGW without offering an alternative. This niche is already quite full.
Except that wasn’t the comment I was responding to!
I too quote the question I was responding to
to which I responded “I do.”
that I responded with “Now which is it, “publish” or “meh”
Technically it is, plus I am”
Because sometimes Mosh tells me to publish, and other times he says in general it’s not a requirement.
I have published my data and my code for all to see if they want to, so I consider it is published, and then I point out I have actually been published in a journal in the past, and it was used to great effect.
There’s no evidence to place it on the table in the first place if there’s no evidence of a loss of cooling, it’s refuted. Temperatures going up is not evidence, without a loss of cooling, it only evidence that heat captured in the oceans move around impacting surface temps. Science.
BTW, any good with num-chuks? They’re tricky, I’ve always worried I’d knock myself out with them and stayed clear.
Most ordinary people experience science most often and most intimately in the context of medical and dietary advice. Most people trust their primary care physicians and believe that they are acting in good faith, using the best available information to provide the best possible advice. But anyone over a certain age can easily recall many things that were once considered to be healthy that are now considered to be harmful, or vice-versa.
How many cuts of calf’s liver did our mothers force-feed us in the 1960’s because it was good for us? How many of us used stick margarine to bake cookies because it was believed to be healthier than stick butter? How many of us took a daily baby aspirin because it was believed to be a good idea for everyone, even those who had no particular cardiac risk factors? How many people laughed at those Australian scientists who had the audacity to suggest that stomach ulcers might not be caused by stress, but by the bacterium H. Pylori?
In each of these cases, the consensus turned out to be wrong, and ordinary members of the public got to see the scientific community revising or eliminating old recommendations and publishing new ones.
Most people do not believe that the medical community is falsifying data or playing games. Rather, people understand that science is hard, and that sometimes the entire scientific community gets it wrong, and then subsequently corrects its mistakes based upon new data and/or new interpretations.
Why, then, would it be surprising that many ordinary people are somewhat skeptical of scientific consensus in other fields, such as climate science? I think it is a very rational response for anyone who has been observing the evolution of consensus in the medical field.
Not a bad idea, Aneipris. Skeptics tend to be older but we are lately seeing a lot of more senior protests, thanks to Obamacare. Plus I imagine there is a good radical faction of young skeptics.
We need a slogan and I suggest Climate Sanity, but political PR is not my field. I would not start in DC, which is like broadway, but rather in some more remote cities. There are people who know how to do this, so we just need the concept and the money. Thanks for the thought.
Ignore Mosher, as he is just being deliberately stupid. This is a workable proposal, but time is tight.
I don’t believe it’s deliberate. Why would anyone want to appear like a blithering idi0t using their real name?
CAGW skeptics are doing just fine, David. All that was ever needed was a holding action long enough for Mother Nature to reveal herself. Mission accomplished. Mainstream climate scientists are beside themselves over the success of the holding action. They can’t go any longer without thinking about skeptics than teenage boys can go without thinking about sex. The pause has killed the cause.
Like other skeptics have said.. there is no consistent banner to march under.
Its interesting that when skeptics make this argument folks laugh and nod in agreement, but.. when I merely repeat the same argument… folks have a cow.
This experiment has concluded.
The funnier experiments are those were I use near quotes from skeptics and they argue against things they have said before.
The reason for this is obvious
You must know by now that trying to organise sceptics is like herding cats
Thanks, David, I like Climate Sanity in principle, trouble is who wouldn’t? Which it so say it can mean whatever one wants it to mean. The most extreme climate lunatics out there are convinced they’re the sane ones..
In any case, I really appreciate your support. Any thoughts on how to proceed?
Mosher is critical of skeptics:
– “you cant even do your damn science. U got zero organization, no funding, and no coherent message.”
– “I’m suggesting that rather than march in a parade that commenters should do their own damn science. and that if they cant organize to do the latter they probably cant pull off the former.”
It appears he telling the skeptics that the first priority should be a coherent message. But in the climate debate has there ever been a coherent message, that works? The consensus side hasn’t found one and the skeptic side hasn’t been looking for one; the skeptic position is mainly just anti-consensus so a message may be hard to come by.
However, Springer is right. The debate has no winners or losers after 25 years; all the efforts of the consensus team are for naught.
The coherent message is that climate scientists don’t understand how the climate works.
100% of skeptics agree:
consensus is irrelevant.
Have at it Aneipris. Fight back and educate however you can; talk to people about it as much as you can, however you can. To borrow from H L Melncken: “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” We live in interesting times.
Require P=0.001 for “highly significant” warming for public action
When alarmists and politicians are proposing that we bury trillions of dollars of resources, we must require “highly significant” evidence stripped of hype and false positives.
To sift out this major portion of false positives etc, Valen E. Johnson proposed Revised standards for statistical evidence
The university propensity for ‘science by press release’ when mixed with the MSM maxim ‘if it bleeds it leads’ is toxic. But easy and fun to debunk. For example essay Blowing Smoke.
Fortunately, the more confabulated the headlines, and the longer they go on, the more the public realizes it just aint so. The internet makes the confabulations indelible (Viner’s children won’t know snow, Hansons west side highway in Manhatten under water from SLR), the debunking easy, and the communication of this straightforward.
Domenic Lawson in quoted article
“When a sentence begins “Scientists say …” we pay attention. Where once religion held sway and the word of a bishop was automatically authoritative, nowadays it is the pronouncements of the men in white coats, rather than those of the episcopal purple, that lay claim to absolute truth.”
Ross Clark 2010
Can we really trust chief scientific officers?
The Times del 11/01/2010 , articolo di Ross Clark
There was a time when, if you read a scientific scare story, you tended to put it down to the over-active imagination of a redtop journalist. No longer: nowadays it is outwardly sober government scientists who spin the biggest scares. They know they can get away with it because laymen have an irrational respect for words uttered by scientists.
That much was proved by the 1963 Milgram experiment in which the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram persuaded volunteers to administer a – simulated – potentially fatal electric shock to another human being when instructed to do so by a man in a white lab coat.
“pronouncements of men in white coats….” I do recall seeing an event for the press organized by the Obama white house where the white coats were provided on site for the participants to wear by the organizers. It doesn’t matter if the scientist works in a lab, computer modeling, oceanography, outdoor field studies, it’s white coats for one and all!
It’s no longer 1963 and a clinical setting where a uniformed person in authority isn’t the same as an unknown name quoted on the intertubes.
One of the bureaucracies of the old Soviet Union was in charge of messing up road signs and maps. There were several claimed purposes for doing so, but a central purpose was to discourage citizens from simply going out into the countryside and seeing things for themselves.
Today we seem to have centralized governments intent upon concentrating everyone in cities, discouraging private transportation, and promoting only politically vetted consensus viewpoints, force-fed to the masses through a few large media pipes.
Whether you are a college co-ed, a goose, or just an average working stiff, it would be wise to avoid those would confine you and force-feed you through a funnel.
those who would
I see a lot of potential bad news stories , but very few outcomes that I would consider catastrophes’ in of themselves.
I think it is important to look at every story or paper with a skeptical and look at future research to see if it supports it. I think the accumulation of evidence is very important when looking at predictions.
should be “skeptical eye”
“The key challenge, as the Paris confab approaches, is to see the world – its climate and its myriad of problems and challenges – as it really is.”
To see “the world… as it really is” requires a person to have some sort of frame of reference in which to place your observations. In terms of climate, besides listening or reading the local weather news and taking such information with a grain of salt, especially if the forecast is for the day after tomorrow, one needs to leave your enclosure, look up at the sky, contemplate the clouds and sun and, at night, the stars; feel warmth on your face, the breeze in your hair. In a fast paced life or enmeshed in the drudgery of plain old survival, your frame of reference changes, especially with an outdoor jaunt. With more and varied outdoor jaunts, our frame of reference expands and begins to include the nuances of nature. As you see nature with your senses and your emotions and intellect, such moments can lead to wonderment.
I think of wonderment as one looks at a child as they examine a dandelion; its yellow flower, when crushed stains the fingers, or the fluffy seeds which blow a way in the wind. Wonderment and reverence for what is all about you invokes, at least in me, feelings of connectivity to nature. It is the connection to nature which makes me skeptical of reports that just don’t jive with what I have experienced. I may not know causation and I can be fooled and usually am with causation, yet, when confronted by some shrieking headline, press release, expert talking head that just doesn’t sound/feel right, I know I have something else to learn. And learning is fun for me.
Always striving to see the world as it really is fun, and increases by feelings of belonging to nature.
Pingback: The Siddhartha heuristic | Enjeux énergies et environnement
The earth’s history is replete with periods higher, much higher, levels of CO2, i.e., 7,000 ppm, so why don’t we read that the tipping point must be above 7,000 ppm?
Great article, Spiegelhalter is essentially correct allowing a little exaggeration for rhetoric effect. Spiegelhalter, “the one who holds the mirror”, reflects on where we have got to when the Amgen corporation’s bio labs meticulously reproduce the 53 most sensational papers in cancer and cell biology and find that 47 of them are non reproducible:
The “dystopia-de-jour” of politicized climate science is unlikely to be performing any better.
As the art world reflects public consciousness and perception, I found the recent film “Tomorrowland” refreshing. It reveals that people are waking up to the fact that sci-fi films have become monotonously dystopic to the level of self parody. Here is a youtube top 10 of sci-fi dystopic futures:
People are finally understanding the stark absurdity of the doom prophecy of the likes of Paul Ehrlich and David Viner who proclaimed in 2000 that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is”:
Tomorrowland is a refreshingly subversive counterblast against this dystopic pseudoscience, reflecting the words of REM: “It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine”.
Making linear projections of the evolution of a nonlinear-chaotic dissipative system will be tomorrow’s definition of stupidity.
I appreciate the post, 47 non reproducible papers is very disturbing.
Speaking of dystopic and “where we have gotten to” and published academics; the former Marxist ex Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis I understand is coming back to teach for a couple more years in Texas, presumably at UT, although not positive where yet. The only thing more depressing would be if it were our institutions where he honed his craft.
A brief biographical snippet:
In 2012 Mr Varoufakis left Greece for the United States to teach at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, at the University of Texas at Austin. Mr Varoufakis has said his decision was partly dictated by death threats received for talking about the scandals of Greek banks, and partly by financial concerns, as he was on a modest university salary in Greece.
In Texas, he won the hearts of the faculty and students alike.
“Yanis is where he is now because he got it right from the start,” said close friend and fellow University of Texas professor James Galbraith, who advised Greece in its last-ditch talks with creditors.
Prof Galbraith described him as both a brilliant academic and popular teacher at Austin. “He is an excellent, published academic, with years of research and innovative ideas.”
He added that the last star economist he can remember was his own father, celebrated Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith.
News reports of glaciers meting, sea levels rising, oceans acidifying, record warmth, etc., for sure make skeptics uncomfortable, because against this background their own message stands out as disconnected or out of touch with reality. It is a tough situation for them having all this news come out while trying to keep their own messaging relevant to what the public is seeing. I don’t envy them.
I frequently post reports of glacier melting, sea levels rising and record warmth from previous eras but you just refuse to recognise that the modern era must be seen against the context of the past. There have been for example half a dozen significant glacial advances and retreats over the last thousand years and in that context the present retreat dating from around 1750 is not out of the ordinary.
Turbulent Eddie: “they’re not saturated with CO2.”
You are ignoring Dalton’s law of partial pressures, not to mention Henry’s law.
On the topic of “oceans acidifying”……surely among the denizons there is a physical chemist who can easily do the calculation of the pH change for a thought experiment of dissolving ALL 400 ppm of the atmospheric carbon dioxide into the oceans. Assume this occurs over 30 years so the CO2 is well mixed in the oceans, and a huge number of greenhouses constructed on land to confine CO2 for farming as all vegitation outside such confinement dies. If it is true that the oceans already have about 50 times more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere, then adding about 2% more should cause a very minor decrease in average ocean pH (no worries here about ocean “acidification”). But I’d like to see an actual calculation by a physical chemist for those still concerned.
The calculations were done in a slightly different way by AR5 WG1, to correct the mistake in AR4. The calculation is for 2100, where CO2 is supposed to be as high as 780ppm under BAU (dubious propositions, both) which is roughly 400 ppm. Taking buffering into account lowers pH about 0.15, that is to very slightly under 8 (maybe 7.95) in barren ocean, something higher (slightly over 8) in fertile ocean because of photosynthetic removal of CO2. Essay Shell Games has details and references.
Always bearing in mind that as the oceans warm, they will in fact emit dissolved CO2, of course.
The NASA OCO-2 data gives an insight into what parts of the oceans are absorbing CO2 and which are emitting it.
Not remotely what some might expect…
Always bearing in mind that as the oceans warm, they will in fact emit dissolved CO2, of course.
Well, the oceans are not of a single uniform temperature and they’re not saturated with CO2.
Polar waters will remain cold and absorb roughly twice as much CO2 as the tropical waters.
Certainly as ocean and atmospheric temperatures have risen, the ‘removal rate’ of CO2 from the atmosphere has risen:
That has more to do with the atmospheric concentration than temperature.
The NASA OCO-2 data gives an insight into what parts of the oceans are absorbing CO2 and which are emitting it..
That’s an interesting graphic, to be sure, but ocean absorption/emission is not what I take from it. The feature I find interesting is the local minima band where the ITCZ may be. What causes this? It’s cloudier, but lack of sunshine would seem to reduce photosynthesis which is a removal rate. More likely, precipitation removes some of the CO2 from the atmosphere and deposits it in the oceans.
I think it has more to do with biological activity than atmospheric concentration (really the interaction, but a lot of it could have been due to clearing skies in the 80s and 90s among other things).
News reports of glaciers meting, sea levels rising, oceans acidifying, record warmth, etc., for sure make skeptics uncomfortable, because against this background their own message stands out as disconnected or out of touch with reality.
What’s disconnected from reality is forgetting how many glaciers were disappearing in the early twentieth century, and if that retreat was from anomalously greater glaciation of the ‘Little Ice Age’.
And imagining 30m of sea level rise tomorrow, when seas in reality are rising at 30cm per century, perhaps 20cm of which are from climate change.
Or imagining that ocean acidification is significant to nearly all species which evolved through periods of ten-fold greater CO2.
Or imagining that heat is significant given natural variability and given the thousands of years of hotter summers during Holocene Climatic Optimum.
Or failing to recognize that most of the important governing factors of climate ( orbital parameters, shape of the earth, size/shape/orientation of the oceans and continents ) are relatively constant.
Or failing to recognize the benefits of increased CO2 to agriculture and all of the biosphere.
Or failing to recognize the correlation of warmth with human well being.
Those who do not assimilate current events within the context of widely known historical contexts are perhaps more susceptible to the extreme rhetoric of groups wishing to scare the public to advance a policy ( with those ever present ulterior motives ).
While there is no doubt that the skeptics do have their talking points, these have not reached the public, the press, or the peer-reviewed science to any significant extent. This is probably why they look so defensive when saying any of this in public. They need an image change. They need to project more of this hippie-like carefree optimism about climate change, but currently it just looks like curmudgeonly anger.
JimD: The masses don’t care about this debate either way, so your advise is meaningless.
I am just saying, if they were really sincere about the net benefits of climate change, they should come across as more happy and celebratory of the current state of things. They don’t, so it makes me wonder about the sincerity of that view.
“They need an image change. They need to project more of this hippie-like carefree optimism about climate change, but currently it just looks like curmudgeonly anger.”
Fair point. We look and feel better practicing things like Enthusiasm. Anger is better than Fear, Grief and Making Amends however. That’s interesting.
Eddie,Are you talking about scientists ignoring the historical context or are they the ones trying to scare people? Without the science that has been done there would be nothing to scare people with.
“Without the science that has been done there would be nothing to scare people with.”
Wrong on multiple levels.
It is not the science of AGW that leads to fears, it is the unscientific speculation of what “might” or “possibly could” occur in the far future
There are many objectively justifiable things to be “scared” over. It isn’t necessary to promote unsupported fears as fact.
There is no reliable information to lead a reasonable person to claim that they are even reasonably sure that AGW will lead to a net worsening of conditions for humans. Using models known to be unreliable to form the basis of analysis to write claims that conditions will worsen is scientifically invalid.
The whole point of science is to enable us to make predictions.
Who knows they are unreliable?
Joseph: “Who knows they are unreliable?”
Anyone who is capable of reading a graph, of course.
You asked –
“Joseph | July 13, 2015 at 11:42 pm |
Using models known to be unreliable
Who knows they are unreliable?”
Me. And anybody with a brain, in case you think I’m as dumb as a box of hair.
“glaciers meting, sea levels rising, oceans acidifying, record warmth, etc., for sure make skeptics uncomfortable, because against this background their own message stands out as disconnected or out of touch with reality.”
Glaciers meting- Which ones are melting such that it is not an issue easily adapted to by people.
Sea level rise-The rate of sea level rise has been pretty steady since we have had reasonably reliable means of measurement (satellite era) and appears to have been rising for several centuries. When is the rate of rise going to significantly increased as was predicted?
Oceans acidifying- A none issue made up by the CAGW crowd.
Record warmth- So what? It sure has not been warming rapidly.
> Oceans acidifying- A none issue made up by the CAGW crowd.
See for yourself:
Let Denizens epilogue about the Whacko Warmists something something.
And what is it that makes you believe that this is a problem for humans? The PH at any specific location varies more in a typical month than it will change in years due to “acidification”.
Humans do many things harmful to the planet’s oceans, but adding CO2 to the atmosphere is very very low on that list.
Ole Willy states, “26%: The increase in ocean acidity from preindustrial levels to today.”
C’mon Ole Willy. You’ve been known to use precise language. Is it increase ocean acidity or decreased ocean basicity?
> And what is it that makes you believe that this is a problem for humans?
How to reverse the burden of proof in one single step.
You’re the one who claims that oceans acidifying is a none issue made by the CAGW crowd, RobertS.
What makes you think that ocean acidification is none issue made up by the CAGW crowd, and what’s that CAGW you’re talking about?
> Is it increase ocean acidity or decreased ocean basicity?
That’s just wonderful, another Denizen who knows his contrarian memes as if we’d never been there before. Are you a relative of Stirling English or Joe Sixpack, by any chance? If you’re not, here’s some background reading:
Beware your wish to play parsomatics.
Willard, are you aware that pH is defined as the log of hydrogen ion concentration? How are you defining % WRT to pH? Curious chemists want to know.
“Beware your wish to play parsomatics.”
C’mon Ole Willy. You’re drifting and you naked ideology is on display. Precise Ole willy, precise.
I have seen you reference cagw several times in a manner that seems to suggest it is not a term that is ever properly used. What is the context?
So Rob you think that ocean acidification due to CO2 will never be a problem? What makes you so certain?
I, on the other hand, am not certain about it all. But it looks like a good possibility given all the research.
Then your “Ole Willy states” is false, puppet, and a citation is needed about your favorite terminology.
> What is the context?
The CAGW strawman needs to be owned by Denizens, and then clarified.
Ole Willy, “Then your “Ole Willy states” is false, puppet, and a citation is needed about your favorite terminology.”
Ole Willy, his left elbow patch threadbare for embracing his chin, now triumphantly declares we need a citation for a high school chemistry truism.
Ole Willy, “The CAGW strawman needs to be owned by Denizens, and then clarified.”
Straw man, Ole Willy? Let’s see Ole Willy, would you like references for Obama or McCarthy? Nah, you already have those, don’t ya, Ole Willy.
i love the whole acid word game.
I think last time I went through this with willard we both found early examples of
I prefer neutralization
a) its technically accurate
b) its not scary
When Bender my pool boy comes to fix the pool and make it less basic
he describes what he does as Neutralizing. Cause he doesnt want to scare me by describing it as acidifying.
Of course Bender wants business so he pitches in the appropriate manner.
Yup C02 is neutralizing the ocean.
How’s that work for a battle cry..
George monbiot amongst others have used the ‘catastrophic’ phrase but presumably you are looking for a citation from someone credible?
Joseph – life is very adaptive to slow changes.
The growing acidity of the world’s oceans is a worrying threat to coral reefs, which support an amazing array of marine life, and are generally harmed as ocean acidity rises. But a vibrant reef in the western Pacific Ocean is bucking this trend: Researchers have found that the coral there thrives, rather than suffers, in locally acidic conditions.
Mosher, “i love the whole acid word game.”
It is only a “game” to those who, like Ole Willy, choose to play games.
Nova recently had some jive program about acidification and oyster/coral loss.
Corals and oysters have been around for 500 million years.
> a high school chemistry truism
Another imprecise dig, puppet. Your favorite truism rests on “basicity,” which refers to the state of being a base, and may not apply to the relevant process referred to as “ocean acidification” in the lichurchur:
Your wordological concern has little merit alone: can you fish out from the lichurchur an alternative terminology, or will you explain how it’s a CAGW conspiracy?
Please, do continue.
27 million: The number of acidifying tonnes of nitrogen that discharges to oceans annually.
Ocean CO2 has obviously been higher through out the evolutionary past of nearly every species in the oceans. Why must some exaggerate the this?
same old fight
Its more interesting to ask about how the process is described in other fields.
Do people ask how to acidify their pool water?
Or do the ask how to reduce its alkalinity?
Or you could look at what this climate scientist says
“Ocean acidification is the term given to the reduction in pH of seawater caused by the absorbtion of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.
The acidity of a liquid is described by the term pH which ranges in value from one to 14; where one is highly acid and 14 highly alkaline. Pure water has a pH of seven – neutral. Seawater pH varies naturally around the world and over annual cycles but is usually in the region of pH 7.9 to 8.4; that is, slightly alkaline. This range is created through a balance between biological activity and seawater chemistry. As far as we can tell seawater pH has been in this range for at least the past 20 million years.
When CO2 dissolves in seawater it reacts with water to produce a weak acid (carbonic acid). This lowers the pH. Thus ocean acidification is the decrease in the pH of seawater – hence the definition above. But, confusingly, because seawater is naturally a weak alkali (as noted above), strictly speaking the process should be called a reduction in alkalinity because the ocean pH is highly unlikely to become less than seven, that is an acid.
Whilst accurate, this is rather pedantic and it is simpler to use “ocean acidification” because this relates to the cause”
“There had already been publications and reports on the increasing acidification — technically, decreasing alkalinity since seawater is has an average pH of more than 8.0, and the predicted drop in pH will not take seawater below the neutral pH of 7. Most notable was perhaps the 2003 Nature paper calculating that absorption of fossil CO2 would make the oceans more acidic than they had been in 300 million years”
You’ll find examples of folks who refer to “reducing alkalinity” as the “techically correct” terminology…. and then they go on to use acidification.
Studying use is fun..
First use of “acidification” as opposed to reduced alkalinity, appears to be in 1 2003 article by Ken Caldera.
In 2000, the process is just called “a drop in ph”
these guys call it neutralization
Here in 1997, folks use the word acidification to refer to … well.. making something acid
Your better point is this: given multiple ways of describing the same thing why choose the scary one. Note, that if you reduce the alkalinity of your blood its called acidosis.. or something like that.. that point cuts two ways..
Willard tried this
BUT hip check….. BAM
“You should have read the paper, not just the title.
They certainly did ‘acidify’ it. They added conc HCl to get the pH down to the leve desired..somewhere between 6.5 (mild experiment) and 3.7 (more vigorous experiment).
I think we can all agree that ‘acidification ‘ (= making sthg acid) is correct in this case.”
And of course, dissolved inorganic carbon is scarcer at the upper levels of the ocean, because phytoplankton do so like to photosynthesize it for the rest of the food chain.
“Mosher, “i love the whole acid word game.”
It is only a “game” to those who, like Ole Willy, choose to play games.”
It’s been played before and …
latimer delivered the kill shot to the corner
which went unanswered
> which went unanswered
Yet again, the CAGW meme falls back to “but the general world”.
It continued on philosophical concerns, but ended abruptly.
> George monbiot amongst others have used the ‘catastrophic’ phrase but presumably you are looking for a citation from someone credible?
Nice CB move, TonyB, which provides another data point against your “who, me?” stance.
“Catastrophic” is a word, BTW.
Quote and citation, please.
> Ocean CO2 has obviously been higher through out the evolutionary past of nearly every species in the oceans.
> Why must some exaggerate the this?
Why must some minimize like this?
Horst, your 27 million tonnes of nitrogen is divided by 1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons of ocean water. Or, 0.000000002%.
Ole Willy, “Your favorite truism rests on “basicity,” which refers to the state of being a base, and may not apply to the relevant process referred to as “ocean acidification” in the lichurchur:”
Still playing games, eh Ole Willy. Wordological? look up thread Ole Willy. You used the imprecise term first. Admit you are wrong and I’ll leave your elbow patches to themselves.
Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity (Hardcover)
by James C. Hansen
a bargain at $3.92 for all CAGWers or you can get a collectible first edition for $9.99.
Probably not credible enough for willie
guardian headline 2009
Met Office warns of catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes
other references available from other serious publications
It’s obvious that neutralization is a less disturbing way than acidification to frame it for lay persons. There really aren’t any lay people on this blog and the hockey team won’t change their preferred term voluntarily. So what’s your point?
Jim, one study in one area is definitely not definitive on what the effect is of relatively rapid process (whatever you want to call). I don’t think we know that species can adapt to these circumstances and there is a lot of evidence that it has the potential to do damage to certain species and ecosystems.
And for a look at that evidence you can go here You can read some abstracts..
> You used the imprecise term first.
Begging the question with an inaccurate claim, Puppet. On this thread, Jim D used the concept first. Also, he followed the accepted terminology. Puppets don’t dictate how the lichurchur evolve.
Speaking of evolution, let’s correct another inaccurate statement:
The concept dates back at least to Revelle. Op. Cit..
No mention of Nick’s comments on that thread, e.g.:
No mention of Pekka’s comments either.
> guardian headline 2009
Now, my turn:
More than 1900 hits on Judy’s alone.
Jim2: sure, but remember it every time you hear about near-shore acidification that gets blamed on global warming.
Another example of the end of debate and the uselessness of paleoclimatology:
“Record warmth?” A period of warming is normal after hitting record low temperatures at the end of an ice age such as the one we are in now. For most of the earth’s history the temperature was about 20 degrees F above today’s temperature. We have a long way to go to get back to normal temperatures.
Normal sea levels too, and we are helping it along as fast as we can, but do we really want to go to those, or do we prefer what we have now?
There is no such thing as a normal temperature, a normal sea level, or a normal ocean pH. If you mean relative to the past few centuries MWP, LIA then we can infer a normal range of variation. delta T maybe 1-1.5 degree C. Delta SLR, maybe almost nothing to +20cm/century. Fertile ocean pH varies by 0.5 to 1.4 pH seasonally depending on ecosystem. Now, the additional impact of Rising CO2 on that background is near impossible to discern except in models. And those are not doing so good. Unpredicted pause. Predicted none existant tropical troposphere hot spot. No acceleration in SLR, even some papers trying to explain possible deceleration. Essay Pseudo Precision. Face it, JIm D, it aint happnin the way you were told and believed.
Try out the book. Lots of facts and references. Lots of debunking with science, facts, and common sense. Might your eyes. Amazon even cut the price without my publisher’s permission. Better deal than a McDonalds Happy Meal.
I think bobgately was referring to the idea that at least 65% of the last 100 million years have been in a state with higher CO2 levels, sea levels, temperatures and no glaciers. These CO2 levels are what we are returning to, so even though recently we have been bouncing between two variously glaciated states, now we are moving to a third, non-glaciated, state, which as bobgately says is more normal both in temperature and CO2 level when considering paleo time scales.
JimD: The ocean/continent configuration was completely different prior to the Miocene, so it is impossible to make those comparisons. Contrary to popular notions, the ocean currents and biochemistry are the primary drivers of climate.
The continents were also completely different in the previous icy phase 250 million years ago, but what they had in common with now was low CO2 levels, and higher levels between then and now corresponded to a non-icy state regardless of large continental changes. Geological-scale changes do impact CO2 levels, and primarily via that they impact climate.
At any specific place, changes in land height over time are greater than changes in sea level. Will controlling CO2 also help slow the continental plates from moving. (you could be the 1st to point out this as yet unidentified benefit of CO2 mitigation)
Sea level has been rising for a long time. The rate of rise has not been slowing any significant increase.
The Karoo Ice age was noted for a land blockage across the equatorial region and a large landmass at the south pole… sound familiar?
The majority of the last 400,00 years has been colder than the current temperature level, not hotter.
In fact, it has been as warm or warmer only 10.5% of the time during the last 400,00 years than it is now. The current “heat wave” has already consumed 10.8% of the “warm” period in our planet’s next 100,000 year cycle. If there is “doom-and-gloom” ahead, it is more likely bitter cold than hellish hot.
No, according to the Milankovitch model the Earth should still be cooling, with the SH receiving ~8% more summer insolation.
Oh – and “A period of warming is normal after hitting record low temperatures at the end of an ice age such as the one we are in now”?
Err, we had that – 6,000 ya – it was called the Holocene climatic optimum.
It is likely that the tectonic plates movements are accelerated and decelerated by Milankovic cycles (clear evidence in the Arctic Ocean of the last five, and possible of another 10-15), affecting intensity of the Arctic ocean currents as the cause of the past Ice ages.
vuk:are accelerated and decelerated by Milankovic cycles
Got any links to back that up?
Equations for angular momentum conservation, angular velocity of the spinning sphere’s spin, the precession’s angular velocity, change in tangential acceleration due to change in the precession angle (22.5 to 24 deg and vice versa) suggest that the exerted torque on ‘floating’ tectonic plates would cause plates movement to accelerate and decelerate.
This image shows section of the Arctic’s sea floor
The red bands corresponding to interglacial periods indicate rapid magma flow in the expanding sea floor, while green-ish bands (the glaciation periods) suggest very slow expansion. They are of similar width despite the fact that interglacials are by an order of magnitude shorter than the ice ages. Holocene is indicated by the black line. I am in process of gathering more evidence, when all is put together all references will be made available.
Good Luck! Remember, there are other geologic factors that can effect spreading rates. I look forward to your results!
…now we are moving to a third, non-glaciated, state..
I think you’re wandering away even from the scare tactic IPCC with this claim, but, imagine for a moment that Watt never invented the engine and we continued to toil in disease and misery with the lack of advancement since then and that CO2 stayed pretty much constant. So we’d remain glaciated then?
For most of the next 100,000 years, orbits will conspire to radiate the Arctic much more intensely in summer than CO2 forcing could ever do!
Mother nature’s gonna melt your ice, regardless:
What do we want?
To be mired in misery and disease
When do we want it?
Sounds like the rich, free western economic bubble most of us live in. Perhaps it explains why no one is really listening to the hysterical CAGW 97% tipping point consensus.
It is probably disconcerting to many to discover that the explanation of global climate change is simple and that CO2 has nothing to do with it. (Ockham would not have been surprised).
Engineering science proves CO2 has no significant effect on climate. The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change (sunspot number is the only independent variable in the resulting equation) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com [now with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), the near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900 of R^2 = 0.97+ ].
“Engineering science proves CO2 has no significant effect on climate.”
No it does not.
Please do not make engineers seem stupid
Please don’t make engineers seem lazy. What’s wrong with the paper Pangburn linked. Be specific.
Read more closely before commenting.
The analysis suggests a correlation. It is by no means a “proof” of anything.
Preconceived notions acquired from ‘herd mentality’ can be difficult to overcome.
The proof is independent of the correlation. The proof is in the section titled “Proof that CO2 has no significant effect on AGT”. This is quite brief but should be readily grasped by anyone with a valid understanding of the relation between mathematics and the physical world.
Others will struggle with trying to explain a declining temperature trend with rising CO2 level.
There is NOTHING in the section titled “Proof that CO2 has no significant effect on AGT” that is proof of anything. The analysis attempts to show correlations. It seems to fail to understand complex systems where one forcing can be dominated by others for varying periods.
Rob your criticisms seem to be vague knee-jerk reaction to a concept you reject out of hand i.e. CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Again, be specific about what is wrong with the analysis. Being a pedant about the definition of “proof” is weak tea.
This is what the data looks to say.
This is the annual average of day to day change for both min and max temp, with rising temp (Tmax – Tmin), and the average daily solar forcing in Watt Hours based on the daily solar constant (Trising and Forcing are scaled)
This is the same day to day temp change, but averaged by the number of stations, instead of by day, with station count (also scaled)
The key metric is comparing yesterday’s rising temp to last night’s falling temp, there is no trend, which should be constantly increasing if Co2 was causing warming. These are all stations in the NCDC Global Summary of Days data set that have a minimum of 360 daily samples ~73 million daily samples.
> This is what the data looks to say.
Does it have Siri’s voice?
Rob – Proof that CO2 has no effect on climate is expressed in steps as follows:
1) Atmospheric CO2 has been identified as a possible climate change forcing. Forcings, according to the ‘consensus’ and the IPCC, have units of J s-1 m-2.
2) A forcing (or some function thereof) acting for a time period accumulates energy.
3) If the forcing varies (or not), the energy is determined by the time-integral of the forcing (or function thereof)
4) Energy, in units J m-2, divided by the effective thermal capacitance (J K-1 m-2) equals average global temperature (AGT) change (K).
5) Thus (in consistent units) the time-integral of the atmospheric CO2 level (or some function thereof) times a scale factor must closely equal the average global temperature change.
6) When this is applied to multiple corroborated paleo estimates of CO2 and average global temperature (such as extant examples from past glaciations/interglacials ice cores, and proxy data for the entire Phanerozoic eon), the only thing that consistently works is if the effect of CO2 is negligible and something else is causing the temperature change.
Which of these steps do you perceive to be invalid?
I only know of one CO2 impact paper published by an engineer and his estimate happens to be pretty close. I think you need to be an a$$trophysicist to really screw thing up.
For some time it has been possible to use the word “scientist” as a mark of respectability and authority. But that may not last. Respectable science will likely cop a lot of the mud heaved at the dodgy stuff. (I’m thinking daily touting and shrieking about climate here, and white elephant engineering which would not be effective even if the claims of climate alarmists were true.)
Examples. In Brussels dialect the word for “architect” is a term of abuse, thanks to the building of the ghastly Palais de Justice in the 19th century. Through most of Rome’s history, no monarch or emperor, however absolute, could get away with calling himself a “king”, and not one did. It all started with some Etruscan kings, way back, and the mud stuck to the title “rex” for all centuries to come.
I wonder if in future years we won’t be calling all dodgy intellectuals “climate scientists”. That might be fair to a degree, but let’s hope the simple word “scientist” doesn’t become a pejorative. That would not be fair or to anyone’s benefit.
Study Urges Media To Frame Global Warming As A ‘Public Health’ Problem
“Gautama … finally realised that he was not seeing the world as it really was …” The meaning of Vipassana, the technique by which the Buddha became enlightened and which was his main teaching for 45 years, is “To see the world as it really is, not only as it seems to be.” It doesn’t mean rejecting the world at the gross, apparent level in which we live and function from day to day, but going beyond that to experience reality at the deepest level, as sub-atomic particles arising and passing away with great rapidity, and through this understanding the impermanent, essenceless, egoless nature of ourselves and the universe of which we are a microcosm. With that understanding, we can overcome the deep-seated mental conditionings which lead to lives of craving and aversion, of unhappiness and disharmony, and live happy, productive lives, good for us and good for others.
I highly recommend a ten-day Vipassana course, in the tradition of my late teacher S N Goenka, to all climate scientists (and everyone else).
Regarding blogs like this, we have this item on Lewandowsky’s latest paper making the press. Notably “concluding that there is a strong link between climate change denial and a person’s propensity to look at the world as ordered by a giant plot, often by commanding individuals or groups.” This research was done by looking at blog comments on climate skeptical sites.
Excellent example of a bad paper getting published and then covered in the press despite execrable methodology, Jim. It illustrates Dr. Curry’s point quite well.
This is the problem that science has: that the exquisitely silly HuffPo can, on any day, find a funded study from an academic institution to gratify its Posh Left demographic and feed their conceit.
As I said elsewhere on this thread, it is reputable science which will pay a price for this disreputable push-polling, for stunt-based intellectualism masquerading as actual science, grabbing cheap headlines almost every day of the week.
Kids out of the kitchen. Now. Urgently.
Jim, can you actually cite Lewandowsky and keep a straight face???
And how does it deal with outliers? Like myself?
Since I do NOT believe that there is some world wide plot, and I definitely do believe man landed on the moon, but I am – at this point in time – skeptical of CAGW, then this evidence, the evidence of my own beliefs and attitudes invalidates their findings and forces me to question their motives for making such a claim.
Furthermore, I am left leaning in my political views – for example, from my perspective having been a citizen of Australia and the UK, some form of comprehensive state medical care that people in the US resist so much is as vital as a police force, or national defense, or schooling system. It boggles my mind that their is so much resistance to it in the US – but I digress (and probably have created conditions for the main point to be derailed).
So my political views do not line up along the partisan lines normally associated with concern over climate change.
How can this be?
The reason is Jim, the question of whether we are influencing significantly the climate is a scientific question. We can take measurements, make hypotheses, test them and do all that scientific stuff. The question of what to do about that information it is political. But people conflate the two, and hubris sets in. It so happens that on the scientific question, people I normally disagree with politically are right.
You have been a regular on this blog for a long time. You have seen the evidence countering the alarmist view on mans influence on our climate, and seen exposed the poor thinking, statistics, and weak evidence that often characterise the case for alarm and urgency. I find it strange that so often your comments, however respectfully made, seem not to reflect this at all, and that you so often mischaracterise the skeptical objections.
What would happen if you found yourself at a dinner party talking to someone who said Dr Judith Curry was “way out there” and a bad scientist or an idiot or was “a schill for big oil” or some kind of remark discrediting her views? Would you defend her? Do you think her views crazy and dangerous since they (in their view) undermine the political case for certain kinds of action or don’t align with the consensus?
Up thread, some commentators made some extremely reasonable responses regarding historical context to remarks you made regarding current climate conditions and sea level rise. You might have heard these objections to your concerns before, but have you really listened? In order to claim that we are doing something extraordinary to the climate you have to know what the climate might have been like without our influence. Your critics rightly claim that is at the very least extremely difficult to know because nothing we have seen now doesn’t appear to be any different to anything we have seen in the past.
What this original post is about is that only claims that suggest something unusual is happening are interesting to publish and therefore publicise. Once a bandwagon starts it’s hard to stop from rolling. Yet by virtue of being here, you should know that there are other papers, conflicting or contradicting evidence, uncertainty, more nuanced views, that riding the bandwagon is no longer appropriate. I don’t see that reflected in your comments.
“Furthermore, I am left leaning in my political views – for example, from my perspective having been a citizen of Australia and the UK, some form of comprehensive state medical care that people in the US resist so much is as vital as a police force, or national defense, or schooling system. It boggles my mind that their is so much resistance to it in the US – ”
Does it boggle your mind that well over 80% of new drugs and medical devices originate in the US. Ever wonder why? Don’t come out of the UK or AU, do they. ever wonder why? You have a crappy health care system precisely because it is state run. Ever wonder why no one from the US goes to Canada, UK or Australia for medical care? You cant’ have innovation in state run systems. You just don’t get it.
Sorry, but the UK outperforms for its size. It also is known for its innovation as opposed to follow on medicines! As are other countries
It is true the US produce around half of all new drugs but that is the nature of a society that prescribes medicine so readily, as it also uses half the drugs as well.
Btw there is also private health care readily available in the UK.
Americans have, by a large margin, been very pleased with their health care. The major problem has been skyrocketing costs, previously hidden because many employers provided insurance. However, even now that the problem is well known, almost everybody likes and wants to keep their insurance. It is accepted that improvements must be made so everybody has access and the costs are controlled, but politicians advocating for the UK type of healthcare will not, for most regions in the US, get elected.
The UK NHS has evolved substantially since its inception in the 1940’s.
However, an unrealistic expectation has arisen over the years that the state can fund everything from cancer care and minor surgery to breast enhancement and cosmetic surgery.
It needs to take two steps back and create an expectation that private insurance needs to be bought for those items outside the core care. We also need to be much tougher about charging for foreigners who arrive expecting free care for everything from aids to births.
Having said that I can’t Imagine having a mostly privatised service and believe that the NHS is mostly a very good thing.
Tony, same problem here. Obamacare needs to be scaled back to core care. No transgender operations, cosmetic surgery, etc.
climatereason, “Sorry, but the UK outperforms for its size. It also is known for its innovation as opposed to follow on medicines! As are other countries”
Sorry, but you are incorrect. I am referring to innovative drugs, not me toos or minor variants. Not even close.
I thought bringing that up might derail my main point….:)
However, if you do not have a citation for your claim that 80% of new drugs come from the US then I am not necessarily going to believe you. I owe my life to the NHS – several times. The horror stories I hear from the US regarding the cost of medical care and the disparity between those who can get it and those who can’t only serve underline my gratitude that the NHS exists. One of the most successful TV series of all time was predicated on the difficulty of receiving decent medical care for lung cancer in the US.
I was once in the care of a hospital, however run down and shambolic it might have looked, that was one of the top cancer and burns hospitals in Europe and I shared taxi rides with a doctor from the continent who had come to visit and study there. I honestly think the US medical system is absolutely barmy. Of course you can get world class treatment there – if you can afford it.
I would not be holding out the US system of non-care unless you can pay as a model for all the NHS and other state based medical care worldwide has its faults.
Loopy Lew should have a field day with Whacko Warmists who believe they can stop the climate from changing! How stupid would you need to be to believe such garbage?
Talk about pseudo science! Do the taxpayers willingly fund stuff like this?
Would you? I guess you probably would. There’s one born every minute.
But seriously Jim, while Steve Mosher might try hard, I can think of nothing more convincing than Lewandowsky!
Its ok, we get the coded message that the giant lizards running the earth are holding you hostage. We will be along to rescue you just as soon as we can.
from the link on conspiracies;
‘There is ample evidence that the public is currently not being adequately informed about the risks from climate change,” he writes. That is “owing largely to flawed media coverage, to which blogs make a contribution – ”
Do you seriously believe this statement? You can’t open a newspaper, turn on the radio or watch the tv without being inundated with apocalyptic tales of climate change which are escalating as the Paris fest approaches..
This absurd statement-which itself smacks of a conspiracy to hide the ‘facts’- really should have alerted you to the reality that the study is based on a false premise.
tonyb (chief resistance leader to the giant lizards running the earth)
Are they the big, oily, lizards? They sound real scary. Ooh! Ooh!
“There is ample evidence that the public is currently not being adequately informed about the risks from climate change…”
When you’ve got the mainstream media, new media, social media, all things governmental and institutional – that’s on top of google – shrieking the message daily and you still feel it’s not adequate…
I don’t use pop expressions like “meme” or “ideation”…so I’ll just echo tonyb and say that there be some ‘s believe in giant lizard invasions.
tonyb, here in the US it is obvious what he is referring to as flawed media coverage. These are the anti-consensus, sometimes conspiracy, views by right-wing talk radio and Fox media. It is a disinformation bubble that also espouses mistrust of mainstream media like the major networks and newspapers, and I would bet that most of the blog anti-consensus types also get their “news” from this wing. It’s not just climate, but other issues where they stick together in a minority but with a solid block like self-support group.
People who see others as being conspiratorial nuts are in fact conspiracy nuts themselves. I’m sure the paper’s author is in bed (so to speak) with Hil about the existence of a vast right wing conspiracy. Ahhh, the good ol days. We get to relive all that. And with ties to our friends to the south opened up , lighting up a Havana will be even easier.
You don’t have to necessarily believe in other conspiracies believe there is a plot related to climate change.
The plot is to populate upper echelon political positions with i-d-i-ots. Looks like the plot has succeeded.
The collapse will be like the walls of Jerico or the fall of Goliath.
The reason this paper is called recursive fury is that it is about the response to his first paper which itself found those who had conspiracy ideation also included many global warming skeptics. In the blog response to that paper that they examined, they found ironically, a lot of climate skeptical people thought that the paper itself was part of a broader conspiracy. Just goes to show. Now it is going to show again in the response to the recursive fury paper. Doubly-recursive. He can make a series out of it.
That’s interesting, I thought it was pure political propaganda being promoted by useful idiots.
JimD, you really shouldn’t defend that piece of garbage. Really. It hurts your credibility.
If he made a series out of it, the first part might be called Dumb and Dumber, don’t you think?
It sounds like a good name for a movie, come to think of it.
You know Jim, Lewandowsky might actually be working for us.
Think about it.
Ohhh, JimD. Really? Really?
Well this is quite simple.
The main political use of climate and environmental issues is a lever toward globalism. These bozos dont care about the science. It is only a tool.
if you want to understand how the dissolution of the communists in Europe evolved over time into the party of the global ‘one world’. Its not conspiracy, its simply a very large, very intelligent group of pseudo/post Marxists who have, quite simply, beaten the pants off the nationalists with their strategies.
Having attended an American University, I can absolutely verify that these schools inculcate students with an anti-West, patriarchy hating, atheistic sentiment. Would you disagree? Lets take a walk through the departments of the modern university if you do. Have you followed feminism on campus, and the attack on due process of men? To argue that the college does not preach the anti-West global utopian dream is simply to be disingenuous.
So there you have it. Generations of Americans (and now Europeans) taught that nation states and the Western way is facist (never mind that commies have always been orders of magnitude more murderous), and that a new global multicultural order is needed.
Environmentalism is the global lever (your river affects me). Nothing more nothing less.
Its not a conspiracy. Its simply a bunch of intellectuals on the left that have beat the pants off the Nation loving, American loving rest of us.
Yeah, the idea that globalism is a conspiracy.
Pull your head out of the sand.
The global leftists. Etc, etc, etc…
Some supporting facts:
EPA link (policy edition thread). “McCarthy (Gina) refused to say if Rep. Smith’s analysis of the minuscule effect on global temperatures was correct, stating again it was more about leading on a global scale.”
Gina’s use of climate as a multicultural lever:
“The Surgeon General says, “Climate change leads to more intense heat waves, more particulates from wildfires clouding the atmosphere, longer allergy seasons and, in turn, more asthma attacks.” Limiting exposure to environmental asthma triggers is important in asthma management, 19 million African American families and 28 million Latinos currently live in areas vulnerable to more asthma triggers”
There are dozens of idiotic statements like that by Gina. I was in climate science. No SCIENTIST spewed these kind of loose connections and loose conclusions. ^^^
Some more supporting literature on the use of Environmetalism as a globalism lever:
“The central ‘reality’ of ecologized nature is virtually uncontested. That it is also global and urgent provides impetus to the many changes in policy and practice we have outlined.”
(there is probably a better link. My ex guitarist Evan has many papers on environmentalism as a global lever on his site)
The simple fact that a cogent argument such as this is called a ‘conspiracy’ lends credibility to the idea that the press is essentially a leftist tool, right?
Anyway, the whole thing is pretty sickening.
hoping the comment above comes out of moderation. It is the supporting links to my argument above.
One more. Our newest national saint. This is pretty much stock post Marxist thinking. This stuff doesnt just come out of the blue. Read Gottfried:
“The world in which we live is geographically one. The great challenge now is to make it one in terms of brotherhood.”
..paragraph on why America should feed India and all other countries…
“All I’m saying is simply this: that all mankind is tied together; all life is interrelated, and we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. For some strange reason I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. And you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be – this is the interrelated structure of reality. John Donne caught it years ago and placed it in graphic terms: No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main… And then he goes on toward the end to say: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. And by believing this, by living out this fact, we will be able to remain awake through a great revolution.”
The alternate view is that of freedom, where every man has equal rights, but develops according to his own talents. That America should not become entangled in taking care of the rest of the world. Nationalism vs. globalism.
Better link on environmentalism as an attack on nation states. Thanks Evan. Go practice.
“We propose instead a top-down causal imagery that hinges on a global redefinition of the “nation-state” to include environmental protection as a basic state responsibility. ”
“. This means that rule-like definitions establishing
what the nation-state is, what it can do, and
how it can relate to other entities are organized
and established globally. ”
I was curious about the details of the people who view the world as “ordered by a giant plot” and did a Boolean search of that term. I found only a link to this article and two related cites. How can large numbers of people view the world this way, yet never use those words on the Internet to describe their beliefs? More relevantly, why would Lew use a term to summarize their views that they never have used? Is it related to the mental sloppiness he displays when he calls them climate change deniers when all they deny is Lew’s level of understanding about how and why climate changes?
… cynicism … associated … with … dementia …
Well, that’s it for me folks. It was nice knowin’ ya.
Pingback: ¿Se puede hoy distinguir, en la prensa, “la ciencia” del circo de los payasos? | PlazaMoyua.com
Along these lines (the BS of the media), whether one likes or dislikes Trump, the media ‘brush off’ of him as a viable candidate is quite astounding, and looking at the obvious connection he is making to a huge contingent, quite fallacious.
This is what a leftist (even the supposed right wingers, like David Brooks) press looks like, by which I mean leftist in the broader historical sense, as opposed to the american sense where both Republicans and Democrats somewhat left of center.
Trump rocks. He is the ONLY candidate to advocate for preserving our national integrity by closing the borders to ILLEGAL immigrants. It is the ILLEGAL immigrants that are promulgating criminal acts. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
I think the corporate faux outrage at his remarks made it pretty clear that every other candidate is a corporate pawn.
The Pupiclacons want illegals for cheap labor. The Dimowits want them for votes. The Pubs are too s-t-u-pid to know they will end up losing forever if borders are not controlled. Trump doesn’t need illegals and a recently escaped drug lord is now threatening him.
That should have been Pubiclacons.
“every other candidate is a corporate pawn”
What the heck is a corporate pawn? Corporations are legal entities that hire people….for pay. Why is helping corporations to be able to hire more people in the USA bad?
General comments calling politicians corporate pawns are at best meaningless and often an indication of the lack of insight by the writer. Be for or against specific policies…and justify why.
Giving corporations large numbers of H1B workers isn’t “helping the US.”
He actually always contributed mostly to Democrats. Looking at his history it is hard to see why he is running as a republican except using the story of the lamp post and lost quarter, that is where he can see the way.
It is a useful issue and we shall see if others will follow the path he pioneered. Hard to see how the US can absorb most of Mexico and latin america without crashing like Greece giving the welfare and school expenses of the undocumented.
A seven time bankruptee with an obnoxious presence will flame out soon enough. Wonder which of the alternates in the race will pick up the issue. Likely Cruz or Walker who have both been successful in demanding jobs.
In fact 25% of Mexico population is in the US. Mostly uneducated and relying on the taxpayer for subsidies.
A mess like Italy and the boat people from north africa.
I hope my other post gets out of moderation but he did use the forceful you know what act to describe illegal immigrants (the r word). It made me think about the stories of blacks being targeted for raping white woman back in the Jim Crow days. What a dummy..
I read the immigration stances of several Republican candidates and all of those are advocating closing the borders. The list includes Rubio, Bush, Cruz, and Fiorina. Note: I use the term “closing the borders” to mean allowing border crossings only at ports of entry and allowing entry only to citizens and legal immigrants.
@scotts4sf | July 14, 2015 at 8:09 pm |
The allegation that Trump has donated more to Dimowits is a lie. Like all businesses, he has contributed to both parties. But, in sum, he has donated more to Republicans.
From the article:
Federal $703,900 $327,600
State $257,240 $257,250
Total $961,140 $584,850
@richardswarthout | July 14, 2015 at 8:53 pm |
I read the “political stances” of the last crop of Republicans that ran for office. The ones that said they would control immigration, reel in Obamacare, and other conservative-leaning promises. They lied. I no longer trust what they say. Although, Scott Walker has a good record, so I tend to believe him.
I suppose the news got out about the sanctuary city chuting here in CA. Once again, CA leads the way. Press 1 for Engish.
“Why is helping corporations to be able to hire more people in the USA bad?”
Read some Pat Buchanan. Or school your children in how to live in the third world.
I like Trump because:
1) he took on the great cancer of Western society, political correctness (exposing corporations as its ally)
2) he will protect the US. No more apologetics. We are the most phenomenal nation anywhere, anyone that had a problem with that can pay double
3) immigration: a cultural and economic wound if epic proportion
4) trade: another gusher
I think he needs another issue or two, something cultural. Not sure if hell get one or not.
I almost gurantee you when he finds out the crap going on with consensus its going to be ‘youre fired.’
We shall overcomb.
“The trend didn’t happen in an instant: 30 years ago, many feared the southwest Minnesota town would become a ghost town. Instead immigrants flooded in – and stayed. One weekend last month, the local St. Mary’s Catholic Church hosted 14 baptisms in one standing. All Hispanic.”
Parts of rural Minnesota are dying. Enter the immigrants. In lily white Minnesota a nice transformation may be occurring.
“After decades of growing pains, families have steadily replaced transients. They’ve bought homes and started businesses.”
Commerce, probably with little government planning results. Probably without government subsidies.
“Walk down 10th Street – Worthington’s main downtown drag – and you’ll notice mostly minority-owned businesses. Panaderia Mi Tierra, the town’s only bakery, is bustling in the mornings.”
The commerce is a result of government not keeping them out I think.
The point of trying to send some people from Worthington back to Mexico is lost on me. Trump missed on this one but he’ll probably attract some with certain views.
I like Trump because I’m a Democrat.
The Minnesota story you describe is about legal immigrants settling in America. No politician, and very few Americans, oppose legal immigration. However, Americans ARE opposed to open borders.
“The point of trying to send some people from Worthington back to Mexico is lost on me”
There are many reasons for a nation to take care with immugration, legal and illegal. Many of us are not on board with the fantasy of a world without nations, i.e. the global utopian pipedream. All things are not created equal and immigration should only be used to make us a better nation.
Being an illegal is the ultimate statement if disloyalty. One simply cannot be illegal and be loyal, it is a logical impossibility. As history has shown, dual loyalty or none at all leads to demise. It is particularly insidious in a democracy where children of illegals become citizens, essentially you are guving your country demographically away. It doesnt take long until leaders are voted in that concede to everyone else in the world, as our current administration. Joining in some weird union with Mexico becomes inevitable. In case you didnt notice, we used to be lot more badass than Mexico. Why give them what we created? Stupid.
It’s not so much the legality of it but rather the economic impacts of it in Southern Minnesota. Packing companies are offering jobs, people want them and they want to move there. Immigration laws are what I’ll call a construct. Some rules to control the flow of people. Picking winners and losers. Are we citizens here because of our virtue or were we just lucky? The laws are just one more way for one to say, You are not the same as I.
Maybe my view comes back to property rights. We have private property and commons property. The government can exclude people from both of those in the case of immigration laws. So yes it is pointing at the commons and saying no, can’t be there. And it’s pointing at my land and saying no again. It’s saying only some people can use the commons and private property. And the concept seems based on the ridiculous get out of jail free card, citizenship. Most of us got ours by being born. Not because of virtue. Fear of change. That’s immigration laws. Bad consequences, tipping points. Immigration mitigation and not adaptation. Resiliency anyone? That’s rural Minnesota being successful. The benefits of immigration.
I don’t think the US is unusual in this, and until the Eurozone, you had to go through border check points between countries there as well.
Why is it that the US is singled out for having the best interest of our citizens in mind when we allow others to come here? Would you allow just anyone into your home, let them take up residence in your yard or living room?
IMO in general our ancestors did the work of building our country, that’s why being born here makes us citizens. and I’m not suggesting that the rules don’t need revisited, but until then we have rules and limits to coming to the US.
And before someone says anything, I’m 1/8 American Indian.
“Essentially, borders are barriers to trade.”
“Some economists have projected that allowing free immigration to any country could, as a median estimation, double world GDP.”
New one to me. Restricting the flow of labor. We could ship pigs and turkeys to Mexico from Minnesota to pack them, but that’s too far away. It’s more economical to move the people here. A can of Spam is much more economical to ship than a pig. So Trump is taking on Austin, Minnesota. He is tilting a bit against free trade. Minnesota likes its agriculture products.
“What can be done to spread freedom around the world? One answer is to make different governments compete for citizens.”
We can fight a drug war in Columbia or just invite all their people here. We’ve tried the first and not the second. How do we deescalate? Push away or welcome? We have pretty good laws, minimal corruption, our courts are pretty good, and we have land and jobs. We have contributed to some suffering South of our border and going to South America. I’d argue we have a debt to some of these people that can be repaid, morality requires it, by welcoming them.
Quotes from here: http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-argument-open-borders#.osstvq:ya4W
The good news is that come September everyone will be pulled into line and Climate action will go ahead.
El Nino has come , the Arctic is melting despite Piomas up and the green army is growing in Australia.
Look forward to increases in electricity prices and a rampant EPA in the USA. China will be restricted to no increase in building its coal powered power plants for 20 years. India will go ahead with a solar panel in every field.
And Siddhartha will be happy.
By the way Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny was one of my best books to read ever and features Siddhartha.
“Analogously to the alarming medical headlines warning future bad outcomes associated with ordinary daily habits….” – JC
How deluded can you get??
The message is exactly the opposite – avoid X and improve your health. It’s really a case of relentless optimism.
Did someone say ‘ ideology makes you stupid’?
“Spiegelhalter raises an important point: the manufactured and enforced consensus on climate change results in an unknown amount of evidence that we are not hearing about that would challenge the consensus.” – JC
Having become an infrequent visitor to Judith’s Weak Tea House, I’ve come to realise that there is a ‘boiling frog’ effect in play from regular exposure to the ineffable stupidities (such as above) found here.
Dipping your toe back in the pond, it hits you just how bonkers Judith has become, with the ideology-driven nonsense, quasi-pop-psych drivel and the immersion in tabloid-style hard-right ‘news’.
You know I missed that part. I guess an mysterious amorphous force is filtering science to the masses. I wonder if Big Brother is living in the UN quashing any reporting on positive stories about climate change
It’s not even that Joseph.
Spiegelhalter is only talking about what makes it into the ‘news’.
Judith takes a hop skip and jump of illogic to turn that into a comment about the scientific consensus.
So, other than ad homs, do you have any evidence Dr. Curry is wrong? I think not.
Hoping for a rely to this
Tony ‘hope springs eternal’
regardin’ messagin’ infernal!
… and ‘ massage-in’ ‘
Here a message, there a message, everywhere a …….
One lamb, two lamb, three lamb, yawn……
Don’t be discouraged by the lack of ideas to counter the consensus. Judith is sure something will show up any time now.
Here, Jim D:
The estimated forcing of a Maunder Minimum is only about 20% of the CO2 forcing to date and less than 10% of the projected forcing by 2100. It would make a small dent in a large trend.
It appears that four and a half billion years of CO2 “forcing” resulted in the Earth cooling, when CO2 levels were far higher than now.
One or two hundred years of the same “forcing”, with far lower CO2 levels, is now heating the Earth. Really?
And your cure for your CO2 phobia is to reduce CO2 levels so that all plant life dies? This sounds like “We had to destroy the village to save it”, but on a far grander scale – destroy all life on Earth, to save Gaia. Yeah, right. That’ll work, for sure!
Are you also intending to reduce levels of H2O? You realise that H2O kills, don’t you? Best apply the precautionary principle, and get rid of it all, eh, before more children die.
Actually, the consensus will counter itself.
Greg Laden: There is zero room for debate on climate science.
Greg Laden: Sensitivity is subject to debate.
Sometimes some of us think WHO stands for the ‘World Hysteria Organization,’” said Dr. Richard Schabas, who was Ontario’s chief medical officer of health from 1987 to 1997. “There seems to be a culture at WHO where they’ve convinced themselves that a pandemic is such an imminent danger that they overreact
The boiling frog is a fable; not real.
saw this on Bishop Hill. Very interesting and hilarious and sad and telling. Worth watching.
Pathetic. Too bad there’s no commenting Porter’s column, but at least the Star had the decency to publish Levant’s reply.
“But be warned, oh seeker of knowledge, of the thicket of opinions and arguing about words”.
Hermann Hesse – Siddhartha
“Ocean acidification” is a lexical perversion (apparently coined in 2005) intended to provoke anxiety.
With no possibility that acidification (as defined in Oxford, American Heritage, Mirriam-Webster, and Stedman’s Medical dictionaries) will occur, a more emotionally-neutral term is “seawater de-alkalization.”
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #188 | Watts Up With That?
The climate change alarm is further motivated by building political will to act on reducing emissions.
Mainly motivated by ideological desire to justify more taxatiion and political action, any old excuse gladly accepted ?