Scientific Consensus?

[Keymaker]

Do as I say, not as I do. I have a private jet, not you!

[Harold7]

So Gomer and Beemer, what are the factual errors from Dr Spenser's site:Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat if he hasn't gotten funding from Big Oil how can he possibly in error and BTW where does all the funding come from for the IPCC and all the creators of your 32 statements.. if it's funding is from progressive and socialist organizations, government bodies, Leftist political organizations that are responsible for all the peer reviews of the "Deniers" research shouldn't their motives, honesty and integrity be called into question as well?

What would really help is separating the problem of increasing energy cost from the whole Climate issue because they are not really dependent on each other... a case in point, if you consider the increasing cost of crude oil due to demand rising faster than the supply of a finite resource, climate really has no impact on solving the problem other than setting an accurate and provable time frame, removing climate entirely from consideration, the energy problem and possible technological solutions still remain... all our arguments here or at the UN will do nothing to solve what is basically a market based economic problem.

What the climate does is really irrelevant in the long term anyway, whether every claim the IPCC and those 32 points makes proves to be 100% accurate, it is meaningless as there is no technology we now posses or any other for the foreseeable future, that will stop the increase in CO2, no climate treaty or energy policy that can do anything but slow down the rate of increase... the climate is going to do what it always has done... change when it feels like it... the only thing we can control is our technological response to a changing environment.

I don't see how the massive and coercive intrusion into the marketplace by government can do anything other than create huge and probably permanent government bureaucracies that will only consume more economic resources the could be more efficiently used in the business sector to create the new energy technologies the future will require... letting consumer demand drive the direction and pace of energy technology is always more effective than social activists using the power of government to impose their own narrow view of how they think we should live... when will the lessons of History sink in, governments are political animals and are always driven by political interests of whatever political party has power at the time... why would we expect that we will have any freedom or security as government takes over running our economy and imposing solutions?

[MTAtech]

Harold,

Yes, government laws outlawing slavery prevents one from owning slaves. Is that an intrusion that you you agree with? How about buying cocaine? If it wasn't for "coercive intrusion into the marketplace by government," we would still have slavery, child labor, unsafe mines, etc., etc. Government may not always get it right but it doesn't always get it wrong. Government exists to protect everyone from the individual. Your right to pollute the river stomps on everyone else's right to clean water.

[Pexster]

We still have unsafe mines. Not because of "government" per se, but because of an Executive branch that seems more interested in subverting laws than enforcing them.

[Beemer]

Freeman Dyson was brought up earlier. The criticisms are in the comments.Freeman Dyson’s selective vision

Quote:

So Gomer and Beemer, what are the factual errors from Dr Spenser's site:Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat if he hasn't gotten funding from Big Oil how can he possibly in error and BTW where does all the funding come from for the IPCC and all the creators of your 32 statements.. if it's funding is from progressive and socialist organizations, government bodies, Leftist political organizations that are responsible for all the peer reviews of the "Deniers" research shouldn't their motives, honesty and integrity be called into question as well?

You have to first come up with an agenda better than, "There funding depends on catastrophic predictions" that are outside of valid peer review analysis of the scientific methods used to compile their reports. You won't get very far with that argument I'm afraid. The people that published all the IPCC reports have a sence of duty to science, not their pay checks or the governments that provide their pay. Are you of the opinion that miltary troops are the only body of people that commit to their duty?

The IPCC doesn't just represent the current knowledge of climate change. It also represents the largest international effort in peer review science the world has ever known. The best and the britest were invited to the party only as far as the science goes.

As for Spenser and his article, Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat, he depends on people not realising the difference between feed back and forcing. Water vapour is a feedback created GHG where CO2 is a forcing GHG. Presenting water vapour as a major player is mileading and in error. What does that say about the rest of the article if it's premice fails right at the beginning?

Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

This is linked in the beginning of the realclimate.org article above and is a little easier to digest.
Water vapour is not the dominant greenhouse gas

Another good read although a bit technical is How to cook a graph in three easy lessons. Spenser again is misleading and confusing what is known.

[Harold7]

Actually Beemer, I've had an epiphany of sorts about the whole subject of climate change/ warming , whatever you want to call it... other than a work in progress to increase humanity's knowledge which is always a good idea, what actual practical use is there for the Theory?

Nothing in any theory presented has any capability of stopping the next climate change or even predicting what type of change it will be ... there is no climate treaty, no government energy policy, no technology existing that can stop whatever the climate decides to do... so I've decided that the whole subject can be safely and completely ignored... for real world applications Global Climate Change theory is about as useful as finding out a new galaxy has been discovered a million light years away, about all you can say about the information is gee that's interesting and then go on to something important.

Is it really worth spending billions on climate research that in the end can do nothing to solve the energy problem or should those funds go to alternative energy research, something that is actually useful and something we can use to improve our environment?

I think the importance of the whole subject has been so over-hyped in the media that the public has never really been told about just how useless the information is for anything but creating a climate of fear... if the real message of Gore's movie had been an accurate description of possible climate change for the future with the accompanying caveat that there is nothing that can be done to stop it, then I'd be OK with it, but creating the impression that we can stop climate change if we just didn't use so much oil and coal is the very definition of deceit.

If everything you believe about climate change is true, so what... what can we do about it... what can the government do about it... nothing is the only answer you can truthfully use... the reason being that climate research is a passive intellectual exercise that can only describe observed phenomena , gather data and postulate probable or possible climate scenarios for the future based on the present body of knowledge, it produces no new technology, no new forms of energy... if the theory can't describe how to stop climate change what good is it in the real world?

To MTA: "Yes, government laws outlawing slavery prevents one from owning slaves. Is that an intrusion that you you agree with? How about buying cocaine? If it wasn't for "coercive intrusion into the marketplace by government," we would still have slavery, child labor, unsafe mines, etc., etc. Government may not always get it right but it doesn't always get it wrong. Government exists to protect everyone from the individual. Your right to pollute the river stomps on everyone else's right to clean water."

Protecting the rights and freedom of its citizens is not a coercive intrusion into the marketplace, that's a basic function of any government and setting a regulatory environment for business so that everyone plays fair isn't either, that also is a proper role for government... to act as referee for the marketplace... actually our government is set up to protect the citizens from the government not the other way around though that's really not the way it works anymore... I intend coercive intrusion to mean threatening to nationalize businesses, threatening windfall profits taxes, etc.

[MTAtech]

Harold,
Congress has a right to levy taxes. It's granted in the Constitution. The Constitution also doesn't limit what Congress can tax. Thus, if Congress has an unlimited right to levy taxes, it's kind of silly that it's a "coercive intrusion" to threaten a tax on profits.

[Harold7]

Of course they have the right MTA, but why just one industry and why particularly on the basis of believing that American Big Oil has any ability to control the price of oil in a global market... if you're going to impose excess profits taxes, shouldn't that apply to every other industry as well (sounds like a form of discrimination otherwise)... who gets to decide what an "excess" profit is... is Congress going to pass a law setting the limit for profit a company can produce... by that reasoning you could also make a case that Congress should limit the amount of property or income an individual has when they decide it is excessive.

On a separate theme, there is an opinion piece on the Editorial Page of the 29 May 2008 edition of the Omaha World Herald by Camellia Watkins, a regional rep for the Sierra Club titled "Quick Action Needed On Global Warming" basically pimping the Climate Security Act without actually mentioning it and setting out all the wonderful things it will do for us, but never providing the scientific basis for the implication that just enacting this legislation and a global climate treaty will stop global warming... is there some scientific assessment of the effect of enacting these policies on global warming and probability of their stopping global warming or of preventing all the environmental disasters they say are coming... ice caps melting, oceans rising that sort of thing, if so, give me link so I can see for myself?

Just how is a "Cap and Auction" anything but another layer of taxation on the consumer or will Congress prevent companies from passing on their increased operating costs to their customers and if they (Congress) do how will the companies be able to stay in business?

Once the government bureaucracies and politicians take over under this legislation doesn't that basically put us down the road to a state run economy with the government deciding which businesses will get funding, which technologies (PC of course) get funding, how long before political reliability and PC determine which businesses will be allowed to succeed and which will not... how long before wage and price controls are implemented... is America ready to live in a progressive socialist welfare state?

This legislation and it's consequences demand an open public debate by both sides of the argument, but it will never be broadcast (who could stay awake through it)... I'd love to see the scientists, both pro and con, publicly debate this issue... make them provide the scientific data to back up their assertions... a battle of PHD's and competing computer models would be eye-opening and probably hilarious... then we'll find out if the scientists are the ones claiming this legislation will stop global warming or if it is just the environmental activists and politicians pursuing a different agenda.

[zen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beemer

Sarah
We've been going over Global Warming for a while now here on Techimo. You’re a bit late for the party as far as what has already transpired. Tim Ball is not a scientist. This has been well established and he has been brought to task for this claim. He is a denier and industry shill.

Spenser hasn't published in a while but he did publish some papers that were eye openers. As of late he and Christy have been making bad analysis so says the science. I don't know if Spenser is falling prey to a lack of concentration as he ages or what the problem is. Both Spenser and Christy have lost a lot of credibility through their lack of scientific rigger. Not their hair colour. There are many more well known deniers out their that we have outed here on Techimo. It isn't because they have good science that refutes AGW and nobody will let them talk. It's because their science has been looked at and it didn't follow the evidence or pan out. That also didn't make them into deniers. What made them into deniers is they hold on to bad science and keep trumpeting it from the tree tops as if they are right no matter what the evidence says. As soon as you mention their names the automatic reaction is these guys are known liars. They know their ideas have been debunked scientifically but they don't care.

We aren't making ad hominem attacks without prior reason to do so.

Calling out Spenser because he's a creationist is ad hominem but also establishes that he can deny existing evidence in favour of his preferred ideology. This ability could be softening his reasoning powers.

That is the biggest pile of bullshit. All you ever do is avoid debating the relevant questions brought up and promptly go on a character assasination mission. People here seldom take you even slightly seriously anymore.

[Pexster]

I thought Beemer's explanation made perfect sense. He does debate the relevancy of sources quoted, and he does it well. Guess it just upsets your applecart, huh?