Here is what does make logical sense about your statements.
Former Obama EPA Chief Concedes: ‘Climate Change Has Become A Religion’
http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/02/10/former-obama-epa-chief-concedes-climate-change-has-become-religion
Written by Marc Morano, Climate Depot
Sowing confusion is his job one.
But that's enough for Mike, so long it says what he wants to hear.
Answer this question, is there a religious movement in Climate Change? There is on this site, that's for sure.
There is a religious movement against the fact that we humans change the climate in a fast rate. And sure, it is on your site: you are one of this movement.
Only people firmly ensconced within their bubble and who refuse to look at all sides of an issue can possibly buy into Mr. Morano’s political spin.
Speaking in California, former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said:
We still have challenges and we have even more. But we've made great progress and I want to make sure that that progress is not rolled back for the sake of, in the name of politics.
0:11 - *I don't know why climate change got to be a religion instead of a simple fact based science exercise* But, I do know that the actions that California is taking and others will make the difference between whether we stand still fall or back on Move Forward. I do see that states are actually making these investments.
0:30 - The challenge I think we have is for some reason climate change has become a religion, a politically induced religion instead of science fact, that now we have to embrace and move forward on.
What's the alternative to trusting climate models?
Assuming that they are probably wrong because we are dealing with a HUGE COMPLEX DYNAMIC SYSTEM that it is extremely difficult to get accurate data on and must have aspects that we do not know about yet. Therefore the models are only indicators with unknown accuracy.
Therefore we should assume that there is a good chance that things will be worse than the models extrapolate.
There is no Planet B.
psik
What's the alternative to trusting climate models?
Assuming that they are probably wrong because we are dealing with a HUGE COMPLEX DYNAMIC SYSTEM that it is extremely difficult to get accurate data on and must have aspects that we do not know about yet. Therefore the models are only indicators with unknown accuracy.
Therefore we should assume that there is a good chance that things will be worse than the models extrapolate.
There is no Planet B.
psik
So you're saying that neither the people who accept the climate models nor the ones who deny their accuracy have a leg to stamd on.
I think I'll take my chances and go along with the 99+% of climate scientists who say the climate models have something going for them, but that's just me.
What's the alternative to trusting climate models?
Assuming that they are probably wrong because we are dealing with a HUGE COMPLEX DYNAMIC SYSTEM that it is extremely difficult to get accurate data on and must have aspects that we do not know about yet. Therefore the models are only indicators with unknown accuracy.
psik
How in the world of physical observations can you possibly imply that error margins are nothing but guess work?
This is 2017, not 1977, the experiment is in motion and the results are coming in fast and furious and guess what - geophysics works as scientists have been figuring out.
Psik, what you are doing is setting up impossible standards* that allow you to avoid the settled part of the science - which tells us all we need to know about what we are doing to ourselves. Also you ignore that scientists bend over backwards to acknowledge and accommodate uncertainties. Their pronouncements are as conservative as possible - hell way too conservative, but than we are all emotional creatures and the forces of distortion have been great.
*not all that difference from your silliness about thinking that knowing the absolutely accurate weights of the WTC levels will somehow shed a different light on the cause of collapse. I notice you ran a hide from completing that discussion. (must say I'd expected a better showing from you. - but alas people have been disappointing me my entire life, I will survive.)
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyseepage.html
By Stephan Lewandowsky
Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol
Posted on 7 May 2015
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyseepage.html
The article “Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community" just appeared in Global Environmental Change. The article is authored by me and Naomi Oreskes, James S. Risbey, Ben R. Newell, and Michael Smithson.
Seepage: The Executive Summary
We initiate our argument with the known fact that vested interests and political agents have long opposed political or regulatory action in response to climate change by appealing to scientific uncertainty. We know from earlier work that uncertainty is no cause for inaction—on the contrary, greater scientific uncertainty should make us worry more, not less, about the potential consequences of climate change. Alas, those actual scientific implications are often inverted in public discourse where uncertainty often invites wishful thinking and hence inaction. In this new article, we examine the effect of contrarian talking points that arise out of uncertainty on the scientific community itself. We show that although scientists are trained in dealing with uncertainty, there are several psychological and cognitive reasons why scientists may nevertheless be susceptible to uncertainty-based argumentation, even when scientists recognize those arguments as false and are actively rebutting them.
Climate scientists have done an admirable job pursuing their science under great political pressure, and they have tirelessly rebutted pseudoscientific arguments against their work. Nonetheless, being human, scientists’ operate with the same cognitive apparatus and limitations as every other person. In consequence, it is important to be aware of the factors that may cause scientists to take positions that they would be less likely to take in the absence of outspoken public opposition. We refer to this phenomenon as seepage.
We highlight three well-known psychological mechanisms that may facilitate the seepage of contrarian memes into scientific discourse and thinking: ‘stereotype threat’, ‘pluralistic ignorance’ and the ‘third-person effect’.
Stereotype threat refers to the emotional and behavioural responses when a person is reminded of an adverse stereotype against a group to which they belong. Thus, when scientists are stereotyped as ‘alarmists’, a predicted response would be for them to try to avoid seeming alarmist by downplaying the degree of threat. There are now several studies that highlight this tendency by scientists to avoid highlighting risks, lest they be seen as ‘alarmist.’
Pluralistic ignorance describes the phenomenon which arises when a minority opinion is given disproportionate prominence in public debate, resulting in the majority of people incorrectly assuming their opinion is marginalized. ... (there's much more check it out.)
*not all that difference from your silliness about thinking that knowing the absolutely accurate weights of the WTC levels will somehow shed a different light on the cause of collapse. I notice you ran a hide from completing that discussion. (must say I'd expected a better showing from you. - but alas people have been disappointing me my entire life, I will survive.)
What is "absolutely accurate" and when did I EVER say that?
Are you saying we have data that is within 5% for each level when the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers?
I provided a Python program that demonstrates that the distribution of mass affects collapse time while totally disregarding distribution of strength and as far as I can tell no on has even said they have run it, much less that there is something wrong with it.
If you choose to believe I am hiding for not responding to statements that I regard as too stupid to have had to waste my time reading that is your business.
psik
*not all that difference from your silliness about thinking that knowing the absolutely accurate weights of the WTC levels will somehow shed a different light on the cause of collapse. I notice you ran a hide from completing that discussion. (must say I'd expected a better showing from you. - but alas people have been disappointing me my entire life, I will survive.)
What is "absolutely accurate" and when did I EVER say that?
Are you saying we have data that is within 5% for each level when the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers?
psikOkay, it didn't take too much digging to find out that the World Trade Center Tower levels weighted roughly 4,500 tons a piece.
Now you plug in the numbers and see if you find any answers. If that don't work, I do have an address you might find helpful.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#ref5
Okay, it didn't take too much digging to find out that the World Trade Center Tower levels weighted roughly 4,500 tons a piece.
Do you understand what an AVERAGE really is?
You can put a man's head and shoulders in a freezer and his legs in an oven and still maintain a normal average temperature and kill him at the same time. Do you really think that the 10th level that had to support 100 levels above had the same amount of steel as the 100th level that only had to support 10 regardless of what the AVERAGE was?
This thread is about climate. Aren't climate scientists saying the arctic temperatures are rising faster than the AVERAGE. So shouldn't they ignore that anD only concentrate on the AVERAGE?
I do find it rather amusing that people claiming to be SCIENTIFIC can turn this attitude on and off at will.
I addressed this issue with Frank Greening almost NINE years ago:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316
My python program demonstrates that being bottom heavy would increase collapse time. Is it too difficult for you to run?
If you want to talk about the WTC put it in the other thread. I will read it. I will decide whether or not to respond. If you want to believe I am HIDING if I do not waste the time responding I do not give a SHIT!
Center For Inquiry indeed. :lol:
psik
I do find it rather amusing that people claiming to be SCIENTIFIC can turn this attitude on and off at will.
I addressed this issue with Frank Greening almost NINE years ago:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316
psik
Psik, in there you wrote: "Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above."
Are you saying you still believe that?
That was NINE years ago. It was before I noticed that people were playing semantic debating games with the meaning of the word FLOOR.
I have since made a point of using the word LEVEL. The large open space of the FLOOR outside the core in the WTC design is what people use to rationalize the collapse.
psik
I thought this was a thread about climate models...
I agree completely. I told him to post that stuff in the Skyscraper Physics thread.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/229931/
psikGood point, but he started it %-P
Also great timing considering what I finished reading a few minutes ago.
It's always nice when GdB shows up, his timing is impeccable and he's the enviable current titleholder for CFI Succinctness. :)
Judith Curry (ClimateEtc.) confuses laypeople about climate models
Posted on February 21, 2017 by ...and Then There's Physics
Judith Curry has written a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation called Climate Models for the layman.
As you can imagine, the key conclusions is that climate models are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social,
economic and energy systems. I thought I would comment on the key points.
GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.
Well, yes, this is probably true. However, it’s primarily because we only have one planet and haven’t yet invented a time machine.
We can’t run additional planetary-scale experiments and we can’t go back in time to collect more data from the past.
There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system.
This appears to relate to the fact that the system is non-linear and, hence, chaotic.
Well, that it is chaotic does not mean that it can vary wildly;
it’s still largely constrained by energy balance.
It will tend towards a state in which the energy coming in, matches the energy going out.
This is set by the amount of energy from the Sun, the amount reflected, and the composition of the atmosphere.
It doesn’t have to exactly match this state, but given the heat capacity of the various parts of the system,
it is largely constrained to remain fairly close to this state. Also, for the kind of changes we might expect in the coming decades,
the response is expected to be roughly linear. This doesn’t mean that something unexpected can’t happen,
simply that it is unlikely. Also, that some non-linearity might trigger some kind of unexpected, and substantial,
change doesn’t somehow reduce the risks.
There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models
are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion
of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural.
This seems like a strawman argument.
There isn’t really a claim that climate models can identify with high confidence the proportion of the 20th century warming
that was human-caused as opposed to natural.
However, they can be used to estimate attribution, and the conclusion is that it is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in
global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
and other anthropogenic forcings together (e.g., here ). Additionally, the best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar
to the observed warming over this period (e.g., here ). One reason for this is that it is very difficult to construct a physically plausible, and consistent,
scenario under which more than 50% of the warming is not anthropogenic. ...
The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.
This seems to be complaining that these models can’t predict things like volcanic activity and solar variability. Well, unless we somehow significantly reduce our emissions,
the volcanic forcing will probably be small compared to anthropogenic forcings.
Also, even if we went into another Grand Solar Minimum, the reduction in solar forcing will probably only compensate for increasing anthropogenic forcings for a decade or so,
and this change will not persist. Again, unless we reduce our emissions, these factors will almost certainly be small compared to anthropogenic influences,
so this doesn’t seem like a particularly significant issue. ...
Check it out, there's a bunch more, interesting article if you're into a realistic appreciation for climate models.
I'll take good conversation where I can get it, tangents and distractions not excluded. But okay I'll work on taking our 9/11 talk back over there.
Although this is sort of related to modeling, error margins, and expectation of accuracy - compared to the need for that accuracy to tell one anything of value,
that a less accurate model couldn't.
Back when you were in school, did you ever have teachers who were you learned that a well placed question, would send him way off script, but usually towards fun stuff.
Personality question, did those teachers drive you crazy or did you love them and find yourself with the other few co-conspiritors to encourage his/her predilection. YES NO
I want to clarify all those smaller quote boxes were Curry’s words, with one exception.
Judith Curry (ClimateEtc.) confuses laypeople about climate models
Posted on February 21, 2017 by ...and Then There's Physics
Judith Curry has written a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation called Climate Models for the layman.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/judith-curry-confuses-laypeople-about-climate-models
Curry: There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system.
This appears to relate to the fact that the system is non-linear and, hence, chaotic.
ATTP: Well, that it is chaotic does not mean that it can vary wildly;
it’s still largely constrained by energy balance.
Back when you were in school, did you ever have teachers who were you learned that a well placed question, would send him way off script, but usually towards fun stuff.
Personality question, did those teachers drive you crazy or did you love them and find yourself with the other few co-conspiritors to encourage his/her predilection. YES NO
Back when you were in school, did you ever have teachers who were you learned that a well placed question, would send him way off script, but usually towards fun stuff.
Personality question, did those teachers drive you crazy or did you love them and find yourself with the other few co-conspiritors to encourage his/her predilection. YES NO
There was supposed to be a script?
psikSure, the haloed lesson plans.
I only payed serious attention in math and science courses. As long as it was interesting I would not care if they went off script.
Other courses weren't interesting enough to care if they were on script or not.
I am pretty sure Brother Edward stayed on script but I ignored religion and got straight Ds.
psik
Climate is history just like physics.
Watch Shell’s 1991 Video Warning of Catastrophic Climate Change
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/watch-shells-1991-video-warning-catastrophic-climate-change/
psik
Oh, right, another government conspiracy. Why don't you stick to the WTC conspiracy. That should keep you busy enough.
Read these if you can take time from your conspiracy theories:
scientificamerican.com/article/insights-into-the-personalities-conspiracy-theorists/
psmag.com/a-psychological-profile-of-conspiracy-theorists-967597f2c9ec#.qw9hlhszx
csicop.org/si/show/crazy_beliefs_sane_believers_toward_a_cognitive_psychology_of_conspiracy_id
Climate is history just like physics.
Watch Shell’s 1991 Video Warning of Catastrophic Climate Change
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/watch-shells-1991-video-warning-catastrophic-climate-change/
psik
Oh, right, another government conspiracy. Why don't you stick to the WTC conspiracy. That should keep you busy enough.
Read these if you can take time from your conspiracy theories:
scientificamerican.com/article/insights-into-the-personalities-conspiracy-theorists/
psmag.com/a-psychological-profile-of-conspiracy-theorists-967597f2c9ec#.qw9hlhszx
csicop.org/si/show/crazy_beliefs_sane_believers_toward_a_cognitive_psychology_of_conspiracy_idLois, I think you are being too harsh and jumping to conclusions. Watch the full video.
I think psik was simply sharing a piece of history - it is what it is.
The conspiracy came with the Kochs and other interested who did not want to see moderation or sober recognition of our situation.
This video may be the last example of corporate sobriety you can find. Google Merchants of Doubt
Here's the full version
Published on Feb 28, 2017
Shell warned in 1991 that immediate actions were the only safe insurance to combat climate change. What have they done?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heMe4PpSVv8
https://thecorrespondent.com/6286/if-shell-knew-climate-change-was-dire-25-years-ago-why-still-business-as-usual-today/692773774-4d15b476
PS. Climate Change 1958: The Bell Telephone Science Hour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY
http://www.climatecrocks.com
The famous Bell Telephone Hour clip, with the all knowing Dr Frank Baxter explaining a very modern understanding of climate science in 1958.
Enlightening and infuriating.
Show this to your ditto head buddy who thinks global warming was invented by Al Gore.
Many people have seen this on other sites, but I thought it would be good to make it part of the Climate Crocks playlist.
LINKS AVAILABLE UNDER DESCRIPTIONS
More climate history
Gilbert Plass 1955 "Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change"
Wally Broeker: Coins the term Global Warming in 1975
James Hansen's 1981 paper in Science
http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:C...
http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:1...