- Status
T
Theo520
Guest
Trump’s Perfect Earth Day Statement
By Tom Harris President Donald Trump was right to ignore climate change in his April 22, 2019 Earth Day message. Instead, he focused on issues that actually matter and over which we have considerab…
wattsupwiththat.com
he focused on issues that actually matter and over which we have considerable control: protecting the nation’s water infrastructure, conservation of land, water, and wildlife, improving forest health and, of course, economic prosperity, the linchpin on which all the rest is founded. After all, without prosperity, we cannot afford to protect the environment. Trump explained in his official Earth Day statement:
T
Theo520
Guest
The research shows, they don’t deliver (spoiler)
bfi.uchicago.edu
Do Renewable Portfolio Standards Deliver Cost-Effective Carbon Abatement? | BFI
The most prevalent climate policies in the U.S. are Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which mandate a specified share of electricity come from sources such as wind and solar. Using a com-prehensive data set and a difference-in-differences style research design, we find that electricity prices...
bfi.uchicago.edu
V
Victoria33
Guest
Greenland Is Falling Apart
Since 1972, the giant island’s ice sheet has lost 11 quadrillion pounds of water.
www.theatlantic.com
T
Theo520
Guest
Beto’s $5 Trillion Climate Change Plan
US Rep Beto O’Rourke Guest essay by Eric Worrall Democrat Presidential Primary candidate Beto O’Rourke is hoping you’ll find the $5 Trillion cost of his green new deal lite more p…
wattsupwiththat.com
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Especially when the “general conclusions” are known to be true a priori and independently of the models but then the validity of the models can be determined by their ability to corroborate those “general conclusions.” In any other instance that would be known as begging the question, but not where 97% of scientists just know those “general conclusions” happen to be true and build their models to align with those conclusions.Theo520:
All models and reconstructions have errors. Mann’s “hockey stick” has errors, and some subsequent reconstructions are better. But they are not substantial errors that would undermine the general conclusions draw from that reconstruction.LeafByNiggle:
I think your link argues that reconstructions are good science, not that Mann’s was without error.
T
Theo520
Guest
I assume he’s referring to the general conclusion that temps are rising with the start of the industrial age. But it’s clearly wrong to draw the conclusion that the IA is the cause, since it also coincides with the end of our little ice age.
No, a reconstruction does not prove that man is the cause of current warming. Reconstructions show past warming was not caused by man and they lack sufficient fidelity to show precise rate of changes for past warming and cooling periods.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The “little ice age” is a name given to a period of time in which temperatures were observed to be much lower than before or after that period. The fact that it has a name does not mean the effect it describes is understood. It is not like the term “winter” which stands for a period of time in which the temperatures are colder and we know why, because of the tilt of the earth’s axis. So we can properly say that the warming we see in spring is “because of” the end of winter. No such situation exists with the little ice age. It is named because it happened. It did not happen because we understood why it had to happen and then named it. So it makes no sense to say that it is warmer now “because of” the ending of the little ice age. Rather it is the other way around. The little ice age is said to have ended because of the rising of temperatures.HarryStotle:
I assume he’s referring to the general conclusion that temps are rising with the start of the industrial age. But it’s clearly wrong to draw the conclusion that the IA is the cause, since it also coincides with the end of our little ice age.
No one fact proves man is the cause of current warming. But reconstructions of prehistoric temperatures do lend support to the theory, which is all any scientific theory can hope for.
Which is fine, because no one is claiming all warming is caused by man.
Experts say it does offer sufficient fidelity to show that current rates of warming are unprecedented.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
That conclusion wouldn’t be sufficiently “general,” though, as a conclusion, because the supposed rise in temperatures could be attributed to other factors. The conclusion behind the conclusion, so to speak, was predetermined as human caused warming. Owing to that a priori conclusion, temperature data from the 1930s had to be “adjusted” downwards and temperatures in the 1970s – when scientists were calling for catastrophic cooling of the climate – had to be adjusted upwards so as to make the “general conclusion” indisputable.HarryStotle:
I assume he’s referring to the general conclusion that temps are rising with the start of the industrial age. But it’s clearly wrong to draw the conclusion that the IA is the cause, since it also coincides with the end of our little ice age.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The author of that piece bears an uncanny resemblance to Chicken Little, as does his story.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That was not the reason for the adjustments, conspiracy theories not withstanding.Theo520:
That conclusion wouldn’t be sufficiently “general,” though, as a conclusion, because the supposed rise in temperatures could be attributed to other factors. The conclusion behind the conclusion, so to speak, was predetermined as human caused warming. Owing to that a priori conclusion, temperature data from the 1930s had to be “adjusted” downwards and temperatures in the 1970s…HarryStotle:
I assume he’s referring to the general conclusion that temps are rising with the start of the industrial age. But it’s clearly wrong to draw the conclusion that the IA is the cause, since it also coincides with the end of our little ice age.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Of course that isn’t the stated reason, just a convenient outcome.HarryStotle:
That was not the reason for the adjustments, conspiracy theories not withstanding.Theo520:
That conclusion wouldn’t be sufficiently “general,” though, as a conclusion, because the supposed rise in temperatures could be attributed to other factors. The conclusion behind the conclusion, so to speak, was predetermined as human caused warming. Owing to that a priori conclusion, temperature data from the 1930s had to be “adjusted” downwards and temperatures in the 1970s…HarryStotle:
I assume he’s referring to the general conclusion that temps are rising with the start of the industrial age. But it’s clearly wrong to draw the conclusion that the IA is the cause, since it also coincides with the end of our little ice age.
Climategate suggests a conspiracy, of sorts. As does Mann’s behaviour.
Call me a cynic, but when I see the entire cast reading from the same script, looking down their noses and casting into the outer darkness anyone who happens to be a critic, I begin to suspect auditions, casting, orchestration, payola, and production.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
[No message]
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
…right on cue, as expected. Here come the conspiracy theories.LeafByNiggle:
Of course that isn’t the stated reason, just a convenient outcome.HarryStotle:
That was not the reason for the adjustments, conspiracy theories not withstanding.Theo520:
That conclusion wouldn’t be sufficiently “general,” though, as a conclusion, because the supposed rise in temperatures could be attributed to other factors. The conclusion behind the conclusion, so to speak, was predetermined as human caused warming. Owing to that a priori conclusion, temperature data from the 1930s had to be “adjusted” downwards and temperatures in the 1970s…HarryStotle:
I assume he’s referring to the general conclusion that temps are rising with the start of the industrial age. But it’s clearly wrong to draw the conclusion that the IA is the cause, since it also coincides with the end of our little ice age.
Climategate suggests a conspiracy, of sorts.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
T
Theo520
Guest
I loved the image on this one.
wattsupwiththat.com
Developing Countries: We want a Trillion Dollars to Sign your Climate Agreement
Guest essay by Eric Worrall LDCs (least developed countries) have forwarded an invoice for $1 trillion dollars, to be paid between 2020 – 2030, in order to meet their climate goals. According…
wattsupwiththat.com
E
Ender
Guest
This is precisely the type of global warming alarmism one has come to expect from the media, and underneath it are “scientific” statements that are just as bad. The paper presented in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences studied the ice lost in Greenland:
We reconstruct the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet using a comprehensive survey of thickness, surface elevation, velocity, and surface mass balance (SMB) of 260 glaciers from 1972 to 2018.
Keep that in mind: they studied how much ice was lost in Greenland and the rates over time. Despite evaluating only what happened, the paper ended by asserting why it happened: global warming. That is, they studied an effect and intuited the cause. This is not science.
The evolution of NO and NE glaciers in the coming decades is therefore of greatest relevance to future sea level change as the ice shelves are weakened by climate change.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The paper made no claims that their research supported global warming. They only referred to it in passing as it is a commonly accepted fact by the scientific community, Anthony Watts not withstanding. Not every paper that mentions global warming has to rehash to whole thing, especially if it is not the thrust of the research of the paper, which was excellent.Victoria33:
This is precisely the type of global warming alarmism one has come to expect from the media, and underneath it are “scientific” statements that are just as bad. The paper presented in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences studied the ice lost in Greenland:
We reconstruct the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet using a comprehensive survey of thickness, surface elevation, velocity, and surface mass balance (SMB) of 260 glaciers from 1972 to 2018.
Keep that in mind: they studied how much ice was lost in Greenland and the rates over time. Despite evaluating only what happened, the paper ended by asserting why it happened: global warming. That is, they studied an effect and intuited the cause. This is not science.
The evolution of NO and NE glaciers in the coming decades is therefore of greatest relevance to future sea level change as the ice shelves are weakened by climate change.
E
Ender
Guest
Exactly. There was nothing whatever in their work that even addressed the possible causes of ice loss in Greenland, yet they threw out the conclusion that it was due to climate change.
The only “fact” here is that there are people in the scientific community who believe it. To assert as a fact something that wasn’t even studied is grossly inappropriate.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It doesn’t take a great scientific mind to say that ice melts when it gets warmer.LeafByNiggle:
Exactly. There was nothing whatever in their work that even addressed the possible causes of ice loss in Greenland, yet they threw out the conclusion that it was due to climate change.
No, the climate is warming. That is a fact. There is less certainty about the cause, but the effect is a fact.
- Status