World's top physicist and "climate change"

[Doc Savage Fan]

Did you even bother to read his post? He said that instead of deflation we got very low inflation. Everyone else was predicting big time inflation. Basically other people were saying +10 (or really +20 or +100) and Krugman was saying -2. The answer ended up being 1. You want to call him wrong on that when he was by far the best predictor of what we ended up seeing?

You're basically trying to conflate an error of extent with an error of kind, which sounds an awful lot like motivated reasoning.

By the way, your constant attempts to accuse people who disagree with you of being dishonest or spinning or whatever is getting tiresome. Maybe everyone who tells you you're wrong isn't trying to lie to you. Maybe you just made a bad post.



Fabricate excuses? Wut.

DSF, I am really starting to worry about you.



I can't believe this has to be explained to you. People who make lots of predictions are invariably wrong sometimes. Krugman has been wrong many times, but in the time after the crisis he has gotten the big stuff right. That's why he's a good person to look to in order to understand the time after the crisis. Menchen got the big stuff on the topic of external threats utterly wrong. That's why he's a bad source for it.

I have no idea why you would choose this hill to die on. Think how twisted your logic has to be where you're trying to use Krugman being right in kind but not degree as a reason why it's perfectly fine to quote someone about external threats who thought the Nazis weren't a threat.

Here, let me spell it out for you as you seem to be having difficulty. Krugman has been wrong on several issues as he's publicly admitted, Menchen was wrong on the one issue as you noted...yet you say that Krugmen is credible despite him have wrong opinions on these several issues, while saying out of the other side of your mouth that Menchen is not credible because he held an opinion that turned out to be wrong. And now you're attempting to rationalize this blatant cognitive dissonance by making an inane comparison that Menchen was somehow more wrong than Krugman and therefore Menchen should not to be taken as a credible source. Just stop with the nonsensical arguments....you're embarrassing yourself now.

 

[fskimospy]

Here, let me spell it out for you as you seem to be having difficulty. Krugman has been wrong on several issues as he's publicly admitted, Menchen was wrong on the one issue as you noted...yet you say that Krugmen is credible despite him have wrong opinions on these several issues, while saying out of the other side of your mouth that Menchen is not credible because he held an opinion that turned out wrong.

Yes. A person who has been wrong on some things but has gotten the major questions of the day right on his chosen topic is credible while the person who got the major question of his day wrong on his chosen topic is not. I mean, isn't that just kind of obvious?

I see you haven't taken the suggestion that you stop calling other people liars when they point out that you've made bad arguments, though. I guess I can return the favor from now on. How fun!

And now you're attempting to rationalize this blatant cognitive dissonance by making an inane comparison that Menchen was somehow more wrong than Krugman. Just stop with the nonsensical arguments....you're embarrassing yourself now.

Yes. A person who said the Nazis weren't a threat is more wrong on threats to the US than someone who said deflation might happen when just extremely low inflation happened while everyone else predicted high inflation.

This is embarrassing for someone, but not for who you think. You're saying "being a point or so off on inflation predictions is just like saying Hitler wasn't a threat". Aren't you embarrassed by that?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes. A person who has been wrong on some things but has gotten the major questions of the day right on his chosen topic is credible while the person who got the major question of his day wrong on his chosen topic is not. I mean, isn't that just kind of obvious?

I see you haven't taken the suggestion that you stop calling other people liars when they point out that you've made bad arguments, though. I guess I can return the favor from now on. How fun!



Yes. A person who said the Nazis weren't a threat is more wrong on threats to the US than someone who said deflation might happen when just extremely low inflation happened while everyone else predicted high inflation.

This is embarrassing for someone, but not for who you think. You're saying "being a point or so off on inflation predictions is just like saying Hitler wasn't a threat". Aren't you embarrassed by that?

Pathetic.

 

[fskimospy]

Pathetic.

For once we agree! 'Predicting inflation to be a point or two lower than it was is just like saying the Nazis weren't a threat'. You're a piece of work DSF, haha. I can't imagine many other posters on here who would try to make that argument with a straight face.

Maybe it's because I gave you too much credit for not being a liar up to this point. (you always seemed more like a 'who, me?' concern troll) I guess we can chalk that up to another mistaken prediction, huh.

 

[MongGrel]

What the fuck is this fish-hugging hippy shit? Do you even know how big the ocean is and how many fish are in it? Saying man can influence the amount of fish in the ocean is the height of arrogance. Put the joint down and use your head. All the scientists like this Dyson fellow are clearly paid shills for the liberal agenda trying to take money from my wallet for their hippy fish with all their predictions of doom and gloom when the reality is that the fish will never be depleted in our lifetime, probably not in my kids' lifetime, and hopefully not in my grandkids' lifetime. Where are the fish models? Are the fish models from 1970 even accurate? Why don't the satellite fish counts jive with the ship bucket counts? So convenient that the ship buckets pick up less fish than the much more accurate satellites. Do they even account for the fish that jump out of the buckets?

One of the rare times I'd say you're really wrong myself.

 

[MongGrel]

Pathetic.

Yes you are.

You keep throwing up one chart and refusing to read anything else.

You should back up and look at what Paratus put up there, either you didn't or you know no better.

 

[MongGrel]

In actual fact, the term "cleaner" has generally been used to describe improvements in the combustion (oxidizing) process that results in fewer harmful byproducts (e.g. CO, various nitrous oxides, mercury, etc.). The goal used to be completely "clean" combustion that produced only carbon dioxide and water vapor. So while you are technically correct that improving technology continues to make the burning of fossil fuels "cleaner", you should recognize that these improvements have very little (beyond fuel efficiency) impact on the amount of carbon released into the environment when fossil fuels are burned. This is actually the fact.

It's only when (or if) you realize that "clean" combustion of fossil fuels can have adverse impacts on our climate that you are incented to shift to other sources of "green" energy that don't release carbon into the environment. So the recognition of "global warming/climate change" is fundamental to making the right energy choices in the future.

As always, the best theories provided by science today can turn out to be wrong based on new information gathered in the future. That said, today's best scientific theories are still our best guide for understanding how the world works and what courses of action we should take. People who are ready to reject today's best scientific theories in favor of their own uniformed opinions or wishful thinking do not IMHO really understand or accept the scientific method.

It's almost humorous to read through threads like this one in which some people seem to think that the outcome of the political/conspiracy debate will determine the reality of climate change. Almost humorous until I remember that Mother Nature will not be swayed by any or our arguments. Our best hope is to pay attention to what Mother Nature is trying to tell us through the collection of data and the application of the scientific method.

Trying to argue with John along those lines will only make your head implode.

So 1,000 engineers drive to work for 2 years working on solar technology and burning fossil fuels. You guys use plastics and voltaic materials sourced from fossil fuels or energy from coal fired power plants. You send the design to China where they have practically zero regulations and they manufacture them and ship them 18,000 miles via cargo ship burning fossil fuel. You install it in your house and its zero carbon emissions.

Right.

You seem to making a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true, though even a Prius made along similar lines isn't viable for the same reasons. They do more damage in production than they will ever recoup.

 

[dank69]

One of the rare times I'd say you're really wrong myself.

So you're another fish-hugging hippy?

 

[bshole]

So you're another fish-hugging hippy?

Seriosly dude, they KNOW the fish are vanishing because the catches are going down yearly. That is about as objective as you can get. Some fish have actually become commerically extinct in the past few decades. These varieties are now raised on farms. You see what happens when all the resouces of the western world are wasted on a perceived problem while real problems go ignored? SPECIES GO EXTINCT AND FOOD SOURCES ARE LOST FOR ETERNITY!

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I spy with my little eye two people who don't understand sarcasm...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This thing again? While you didn't say specifically why you posted it most people post this by itself to show that the climate just isn't changing much. Ok. Let's take a look and see if this one piece of data can be interpreted that way. Let's start by comparing it to the ground stations.

Thank you for linking that Jasklas. For you let's try and answer whether either of those temperature records shouldn't be trusted.

From the above:

The Lower Troposphere is slowly heating, the surface atmosphere is heating faster.

I'm sorry...I got stuck here. The UAH lower troposphere data tracks with the ground station data.

In the past, the LT data didn't track as well with surface data and UAH algorithms were adjusted to address concerns (such as satellite drift). The graph I previously cited uses the adjusted data set and actually tracks relatively well with the surface data. UAH (Version 6) is a highly trusted data source and I believe that we have a fairly good picture of atmospheric temperature trends using the UAH satellite data.

As far as the ocean goes, I believe that our level of understanding of the historical temperature record (below the surface) is not nearly as robust....so I have no comment other than that.

 

[dank69]

Seriosly dude, they KNOW the fish are vanishing because the catches are going down yearly. That is about as objective as you can get. Some fish have actually become commerically extinct in the past few decades. These varieties are now raised on farms. You see what happens when all the resouces of the western world are wasted on a perceived problem while real problems go ignored? SPECIES GO EXTINCT AND FOOD SOURCES ARE LOST FOR ETERNITY!

Do you work for Hollywood or something? Sounds like the plot for the next 2012 type movie. Maybe these fishermen are just not good at their jobs. Maybe too much fallout shelter on their boats instead of working hard at catching fish. Do the fish models adjust for the fact that this generation is a bunch of whiners? I doubt it. The important thing is how much is this doom and gloom going to cost me, an everyday man if there ever was one, just to line the pockets of politicians. Who cares if fish are raised on ranches, as long as it gets to my plate nice and cheap.

 

[IGBT]

http://realclimatescience.com/2015/10/more-smoking-guns-of-fraud-at-noaa/

More Smoking Guns Of Fraud At NOAA Posted on October 20, 2015 by tonyheller

In 1989, NOAAs Tom Karl said that most 1881 to 1989 warming occurred before 1919. NOAA now shows cooling during the period 1881 to 1919, and that all of the warming occurred after 1919. The exact opposite of what Karl said in 1989.

 

[OverVolt]

Tuna’s End

Well that's depressing.

https://hbr.org/2013/02/were-running-out-of-resources

Pfft.

 

[shira]

(See post 119.)

 

[MongGrel]

So you're another fish-hugging hippy?

What does the oceans being depleted have to do with being a hippy ?

That would run more along common sense I would think.

At least the management in the Gulf here has cause some species to revive a bit, globally a lot of the ocean is getting raped.

And I'm not a Greenpeace fan either.

 

[dank69]

...

And I'm not a Greenpeace fan either.

More like a NAGFINO.

 

[OverVolt]

Ha ha ha. You DO realize, don't you, that this statement was made in December of 1989?

I guess this "truth" has been suppressed for years.

Oh, gee, look what I found from 1994:



I guess this means that we're all wrong, in 2015, about what causes AIDS.

You're jumping the gun, its actually a good article.

A couple one sentence summaries from each section.

Recycling is already a lucrative $236 billion industry. Businesses save money every time materials are reprocessed, remanufactured, and reintroduced into the resource stream. But recycling — melting down products and making new ones — is energy intensive.

Service and maintenance that extend the lifespan of products create local, labor-intensive, skilled jobs — jobs that can’t be shipped overseas...Over the past five years, easily-overlooked neighborhood cell phone repair shops have increased by a rate of nearly 7% each year.

Manufacturing jobs continue to move overseas, but remanufacturing — the practice of restoring used products for resale — is a fast-growing American industry.

--Rudeguy much?

Some businesses are already adapting. Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, is leading the charge at his Fortune 500 company. He recently stated that “decoupling economic growth from environmental impact… [is] at the heart of my vision for corporate strategy.”

 

[shira]

http://realclimatescience.com/2015/10/more-smoking-guns-of-fraud-at-noaa/

More Smoking Guns Of Fraud At NOAA Posted on October 20, 2015 by tonyheller

In 1989, NOAAs Tom Karl said that most 1881 to 1989 warming occurred before 1919. NOAA now shows cooling during the period 1881 to 1919, and that all of the warming occurred after 1919. The exact opposite of what Karl said in 1989.

So how come this same Tom Karl was the lead author of the IPCC's reports in 1990, 1992, and 1995. You know, the same IPCC which the international climate-denial conspiracy decries as the lead provocateur in the international climate-change conspiracy.

Kind of sounds like Mr. Karl's position on climate change may not be exactly what it's being made out to be from a 26-year-old, out-of-context excerpt.

 

[shira]

You're jumping the gun, its actually a good article.

A couple one sentence summaries from each section.





--Rudeguy much?

Sorry, I responded to the wrong post. I'll correct that mistake.

 

[OverVolt]

Anyway, per all the Malthus stuff, we are running up against the physical limits of our resources. The problems in the past were easy to solve, low hanging fruit.

Off the top of my head the solution to increasing crop yields is just to tap the Ogallala aquifer, and the US is one of the worlds major food producers.

We already deforested all of the large and easy to access lumber. We do replant lumber, its just that we harvest much smaller trees now. Thats how you get so much particle board these days.

Stuff like that. Malthus was wrong in his day and I don't even break it down like a "Malthus ideology" I just use my brain. As resources become scarce we can employ greater technologies to extract them. Its just that the fact remains - we ARE going to run out of the easy to extract resources and a first world life is going to get much more expensive and exclusive.

 

[OverVolt]

Sorry, I responded to the wrong post. I'll correct that mistake.

Don't worry I gave you plenty of ammo to refute me as crazy

 

[umbrella39]

So how come this same Tom Karl was the lead author of the IPCC's reports in 1990, 1992, and 1995. You know, the same IPCC which the international climate-denial conspiracy decries as the lead provocateur in the international climate-change conspiracy.

Kind of sounds like Mr. Karl's position on climate change may not be exactly what it's being made out to be from a 26-year-old, out-of-context excerpt.

Please don't confuse someone so profoundly invested in denial with facts...

 

[OverVolt]

Please don't confuse someone so profoundly invested in denial with facts...

CO2 is the least of our worries. Its funny that CO2 is the issue that makes people realize everything we are doing isn't sustainable. The everything.

CO2 isn't even the main concern, IMO.

 

[bshole]

Fact: Fossil fuels are a dead end and will need to replaced as they are depleted
Fact: Eventually renewable resources will be more cost effective than fossil fuels.
Fact: The countless billions of dollars that have been spent on global warming research and political activity COULD have been spent in research and development of renewable resources.

Conclusion: Global warmists have WASTED billions of dollars which could have been used to make alternative energy a cost efficient alternative to fossil fuels and are therefor a significant contributing factor to the expensiveness of alternative fuel sources.