Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[JamesCaruso]

We live in a fallen world, James. Sadly, even those in the clergy and religious life are not exempt from sin and self-interest, so I’m not sure why we’d expect scientists to do any better.

Because we’re not talking about a very small percentage, as in the case of priests, but the greater number of scientists. I would expect the greater number of scientists to resist temptations to falsify data, just as I would expect the greater number of priests to avoid sexual relations with minors.

 

[Seachange]

So he’s even more wrong?

forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

very telling - perhaps those climatologists back in the '70’s who were telling us that a new ice age was just around the corner were right after all.

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies.
<…>
Booker could have been writing about Robinson when he concluded his Sunday Telegraph commentary by writing, “Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?”

(bolding mine)

Even if the predictions were right, even if all mankind’s emissions were stopped, it would have no effect on the climate. Mankind’s contribution is so small as to be insignificant.

The only thing these climate programs will do is increase the cost of electricity, the cost of natural gas, the cost of water, the cost of food, the cost of transport, the cost of living.

The people who bear the brunt of these increased costs are the poor on fixed incomes who will have to choose between eating and heating the house.

We’ve already seen companies Obama supported like Solyndra receive massive government handouts only to declare bankruptcy. So far, his ‘green’ record has only managed to transfer taxpayer dollars to his cronies and then back to himself as campaign donations.

So you, the taxpayer, have feathered the nests of Westly and Rogers, who got rich in a business the taxpayers built and were stiffed on when the company went bankrupt. But the prime recipients have enough left over to turn around and give $35,800 a head to put Obama back in office, where I’m sure he would give away more taxpayer money to promote more “green” companies with your money. If there is a worse example of crony capitalism I haven’t found it.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I wonder how many “ends” to the debate have occurred over the years?

 

[Morwenna]

Because we’re not talking about a very small percentage, as in the case of priests, but the greater number of scientists. I would expect the greater number of scientists to resist temptations to falsify data, just as I would expect the greater number of priests to avoid sexual relations with minors.

Three quick points:

1. Re: Priests: I wasn’t referring specifically to the sin that you named in your post, although I think the fact that you interpreted it that way shows how much power the media has; after all the years of media drum-beating, apparently we’ve now reached the point that when anyone says “sin” and “priests”, the reader immediately thinks of the specific sin that you mentioned. Sad, isn’t it? In any case, I wasn’t referring to that particular issue, but to sin (general) and self-interest (general), which are human problems found in every walk of life.
2. All it takes to mar a group’s respectability is a small percentage of wrong-doers; this is true whether we’re speaking of priests, scientists, or anyone else. Look at your response to me as pointed out above; you immediately thought that I was speaking of something specific, because of the huge amount of attention paid to that small percentage of priests.
3. Even if only a small percentage of scientists fudge the data or report it in a less-than-honest way, the larger problem comes when other scientists rely on these reported findings, and use them as reference points in their own research, because they trust the scientists who presented them. Unknowingly, these later scientists are building their houses on sand.

 

[lynnvinc]

So its science fiction?

No. It is based on actual accomplishments of various industries and businesses. For instance, one company laid out their pipes in a straight line before installing the motor, and found bec of the less flow resistance (from having many bends around the motor, etc), they were able to get a much smaller motor and reduce their energy consumption by 90%.

It’s bee a while since I’ve read NATURAL CAPITALISM and I don’t have time to read it again right now and go step by step by step on each item, but one of their approaches that saves a tremendous amount of money is what they call “tunneling through” – making reductions that in the end lead to not having to use an A/C or motor at all.

Another approach was a business figuring out what other businesses really needed and providing that service a cost reduction to the business and great reduction in resources (I think it was a carpeting company).

You’ve got to read it.

It’s mostly about industries and businesses, but some would also apply to households.

There are lots of businesses now beginning to realize the “triple bottom line” is perfectly doable – “People, Planet, and Profits.”

If the majority of businesses and households would have been getting on the bandwagon of reducing their GHGs and pollution at savings without loss in productivity and living standard over the past 25-30 years, then we really won’t need any rules or regs.

However, I see the regs now as providing prods to do what we all should have been doing all along…if we were moral beings, or at least economically oriented.

 

[lynnvinc]

It’s a conspiracy theory, nothing more…

You really hit the nail on the head. In psychology they call it “motivated cognitions.”

 

[lynnvinc]

So he’s even more wrong?

forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

I never thought of that – goingto Forbes for one’s science. Good idea.

 

[SamH]

I never thought of that – goingto Forbes for one’s science. Good idea.

Better than reading science fiction books.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Three quick points:

1. Re: Priests: I wasn’t referring specifically to the sin that you named in your post, although I think the fact that you interpreted it that way shows how much power the media has; after all the years of media drum-beating, apparently we’ve now reached the point that when anyone says “sin” and “priests”, the reader immediately thinks of the specific sin that you mentioned. Sad, isn’t it? In any case, I wasn’t referring to that particular issue, but to sin (general) and self-interest (general), which are human problems found in every walk of life.
2. All it takes to mar a group’s respectability is a small percentage of wrong-doers; this is true whether we’re speaking of priests, scientists, or anyone else. Look at your response to me as pointed out above; you immediately thought that I was speaking of something specific, because of the huge amount of attention paid to that small percentage of priests.
3. Even if only a small percentage of scientists fudge the data or report it in a less-than-honest way, the larger problem comes when other scientists rely on these reported findings, and use them as reference points in their own research, because they trust the scientists who presented them. Unknowingly, these later scientists are building their houses on sand.

Well, sorry I misunderstood you, but I don’t now have the foggiest idea what you are talking about in terms of priest, nor do I think most people would have a clue. You can’t make such general statements and assume that people will not interpret it in the most obvious sense. But that aside, you are now speculating that the world’s scientists are being led like meek and blind sheep by a small number of scientists who have falsified the data. Somehow, over these past fifty years, it never occurred to them to verify the data. Is that how the scientific mind works? Do you believe your own conjecture?

Maybe the scientific community should call an international symposium to hash out all the data, pro and con, available to date, I don’t think lay people egged on by a handful of scientists on either side are ever going to get to the truth.

 

[lynnvinc]

More likely than not. It appears to be written by some environmentalist outfit. But they want money for it, so naturally I didn’t order it.

You can get it used from Amazon.com for $1.99 – see amazon.com/Natural-Capitalism-Creating-Industrial-Revolution/dp/B00008RWBH/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373578160&sr=8-1&keywords=natural+capitalism

People who work deserve to be compensated. There’s no fault in that.

As for Rocky Mountain Institute, you might call it “environmentalist,” but they are not so much focused on the problems, as on cost-effective solutions – as far as I can tell they don’t even mention environmental problems and DO NOT USE SCARE TACTICS OF ANY KIND that I can perceive. It’s actually all quite upbeat and positive.

It is headed by a physicist who has been specializing in energy efficiency for over 40 years, Amory Lovins – see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_Lovins. They are, as I said, more focused on helping businesses and industries than households, so perhaps you might not find a whole lot that would be helpful at the individiual level. I used to donate $10 a year bec I think what they’re doing is great, but haven’t done so for 20 years.

I suggest praying to God to give insights into solutions to environmental problems – He always answers abundantly to those who are truly open to such. God’s help is free.

 

[lynnvinc]

Source of this 97% number?

Maybe here: skepticalscience.com/docs/Cook_2013_consensus.pdf

Of course, it’s written by people with academic degrees, so people here might not believe it.

I wonder what people think of our new Pope Francis, who also has a degree in science. Is he or is he not part of the vast scientific conspiracy???!!! He has called on us to protect creation. Ooooo

 

[Morwenna]

Well, sorry I misunderstood you, but I don’t now have the foggiest idea what you are talking about in terms of priest, nor do I think most people would have a clue. You can’t make such general statements and assume that people will not interpret it in the most obvious sense.

I can see that it was the “most obvious sense” in your view, but it wasn’t in mine (then again, I watch almost no television, and so fortunately I’m spared the brunt of the “media hammer”). I do appreciate your perspective, though; thus, in the future, if I ever refer to “sin” and “religious/priest/clergy” in the same sentence, I’ll be sure to use a disclaimer so that folks don’t leap to the most unsavory conclusion. I was speaking in general terms, and I’ll specify that in the future, should the topic ever arise.

But that aside, you are now speculating that the world’s scientists are being led like meek and blind sheep by a small number of scientists who have falsified the data.

That’s a very melodramatic interpretation of what I wrote. I tried to point out if that indeed someone is less-than-honest (for whatever reason … doesn’t have to be a huge and sinister conspiracy, just garden-variety self-interest, as Ridgerunner pointed out very adroitly earlier in the thread), and if his data is then used as a foundation or reference in later studies, then those later studies will also be flawed. GIGO, one bad apple spoils the barrel, house built on sand, etc.

Somehow, over these past fifty years, it never occurred to them to verify the data. Is that how the scientific mind works? Do you believe your own conjecture?

I don’t believe that all the references used are always thoroughly re-tested to confirm their accuracy, no.

Here’s an example, with 21 references (from a physics article): apl.aip.org/resource/1/applab/v102/i21/p213107_s1?bypassSSO=1#tabs_1_113_1274104113_tab2.

It sounds as though you’re postulating that all the data in all 21 of those references was double-checked by the authors of this article … if scientists really did this every time they did a study, I don’t think they would make much progress, as a huge portion of their time would be spent “reinventing the wheel” so to speak. And how far would it go? In addition to these 21 references, what about the sub-references cited in each of them? Would the authors have to go back and re-test or verify all of that data, as well? How many ‘generations’ back would one go? No, I don’t believe this is standard procedure, although if there are scientists posting here who maintain that they really do double-check every single point of data used as a reference, then I’m open to be convinced.

Maybe the scientific community should call an international symposium to hash out all the data, pro and con, available to date, I don’t think lay people egged on by a handful of scientists on either side are ever going to get to the truth.

It would certainly be interesting.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I can see that it was the “most obvious sense” in your view, but it wasn’t in mine (then again, I watch almost no television, and so fortunately I’m spared the brunt of the “media hammer”). I do appreciate your perspective, though; thus, in the future, if I ever refer to “sin” and “religious/priest/clergy” in the same sentence, I’ll be sure to use a disclaimer so that folks don’t leap to the most unsavory conclusion. I was speaking in general terms, and I’ll specify that in the future, should the topic ever arise.

That’s a very melodramatic interpretation of what I wrote. I tried to point out if that indeed someone is less-than-honest (for whatever reason … doesn’t have to be a huge and sinister conspiracy, just garden-variety self-interest, as Ridgerunner pointed out very adroitly earlier in the thread), and if his data is then used as a foundation or reference in later studies, then those later studies will also be flawed. GIGO, one bad apple spoils the barrel, house built on sand, etc.

I don’t believe that all the references used are always thoroughly re-tested to confirm their accuracy, no.

Here’s an example, with 21 references (from a physics article): apl.aip.org/resource/1/applab/v102/i21/p213107_s1?bypassSSO=1#tabs_1_113_1274104113_tab2.

It sounds as though you’re postulating that all the data in all 21 of those references was double-checked by the authors of this article … if scientists really did this every time they did a study, I don’t think they would make much progress, as a huge portion of their time would be spent “reinventing the wheel” so to speak. And how far would it go? In addition to these 21 references, what about the sub-references cited in each of them? Would the authors have to go back and re-test or verify all of that data, as well? How many ‘generations’ back would one go? No, I don’t believe this is standard procedure, although if there are scientists posting here who maintain that they really do double-check every single point of data used as a reference, then I’m open to be convinced.

It would certainly be interesting.

All things are possible. How does this speculation move our understanding of climate change forward?

 

[SamH]

Maybe here: skepticalscience.com/docs/Cook_2013_consensus.pdf

Of course, it’s written by people with academic degrees, so people here might not believe it.

I wonder what people think of our new Pope Francis, who also has a degree in science. Is he or is he not part of the vast scientific conspiracy???!!! He has called on us to protect creation. Ooooo

Except is doesn’t say what he claims.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But one does have to believe that the scientific community at large is corrupt. That is the pill you are proposing we swallow. How does a discipline that is rooted in logic and strict discipline become sold out so completely on an individual by individual basis? Is that a likely explanation of their consensus? If true, such behavior on the part of scientists shows neither discipline nor logic. I am not saying it is not true, only that, if true, it’s a very sad commentary on the modern age. We have witnessed serious corruption in our political institutions, our news media, our banking industry and in our financial markets, We thought that scientists were the least susceptible to falsifying the data. A big part of me does not want this to be true.

one does not have to think the scientific community at large is corrupt, though there is no particular reason to suspect it of being less corrupt than those in any other endeavor. What person does not, for example, sometimes tell his boss what he thinks the boss wants to hear in order to gain favor or avoid disfavor?

One does need to recognize that “climate science” is not a precise, defined thing. All kinds of people from all kinds of disciplines are into it. Some are not identifiable as “scientists” at all. I am not a scientist, but it is my impression that to be truly “scientific” results have to be objectively falsifiable by experimentation. “Climate science” is not that way because it contains many speculative elements that can’t be confirmed or falsified by experimentation. That’s why we have scientists with exactly opposing views. Undoubtedly, some genuinely think they’re right.

One needs to recognize that a lot of material people use is derivative. If flawed stuff gets accepted somewhere in the chain, a lot of flawed stuff flows from it. I don’t know what they call that in “climate science”, but it’s called “record creep” in medicine. Some assumption is made, or some testing error, and it just goes on and on and on, skewing everything that comes after it, sometimes with very unfortunate outcomes.

 

[lynnvinc]

one does not have to think the scientific community at large is corrupt, though there is no particular reason to suspect it of being less corrupt than those in any other endeavor. What person does not, for example, sometimes tell his boss what he thinks the boss wants to hear in order to gain favor or avoid disfavor?

One does need to recognize that “climate science” is not a precise, defined thing. All kinds of people from all kinds of disciplines are into it. Some are not identifiable as “scientists” at all. I am not a scientist, but it is my impression that to be truly “scientific” results have to be objectively falsifiable by experimentation. “Climate science” is not that way because it contains many speculative elements that can’t be confirmed or falsified by experimentation. That’s why we have scientists with exactly opposing views. Undoubtedly, some genuinely think they’re right.

One needs to recognize that a lot of material people use is derivative. If flawed stuff gets accepted somewhere in the chain, a lot of flawed stuff flows from it. I don’t know what they call that in “climate science”, but it’s called “record creep” in medicine. Some assumption is made, or some testing error, and it just goes on and on and on, skewing everything that comes after it, sometimes with very unfortunate outcomes.

So the big question is, are you and others willing to risk the well-being and lives of peoples around the world and into the future, because climate science is somewhat complex, involving many different fields, and it’s easly for the denialist industry to create a climate of doubt and fear about mitigating?

When in doubt prudent support of life is required by moral beings. And life trumps economics – whether or not mitigating climate change will harm the economy – and I know from experience it will not, and I also understand failure to mitigate will not only grossly harm the economy, but also life.

And BTW, climate scientists are well aware of errors in the data and are taking care of them – like the urban heat island effect and instrumental problems – cleaning it up. They’ve actually thought of many more possible glitches than others have, and are constantly pointing out possible problems in each others works. They are not asleep on the job, and bec it is a highly competitive field, other climate scientists constantly yap at their heels to make them do right.

I’ve been viewing the process over 25 years – claims, counterclaims, corrections, improvements, better theories and better data supplanting earlier ones. That’s the way science works. And over the decades more and more scientists have come to trust that AGW is real, and other explanations just don’t fit the data.

So what do we do, wait for 50% of humanity to die out from its impacts in some 100 or 200 years before we jump on board and start turning out lights not in use? I don’t accept that do-nothing until we are 99.9% confident policy. And neither did JPII back in 1990, when he called on EVERYONE to mitigate the problem.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here we go. Some conservatives promoting a much better plan than Obama’s plan – I think it’s a fee and divident (tax neutral) thing: thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/310225-gop-aide-writing-anonymously-party-should-reclaim-climate-debate-

May the best plan win…and I’m thinking that would be the conservative one

 

[Ridgerunner]

So the big question is, are you and others willing to risk the well-being and lives of peoples around the world and into the future, because climate science is somewhat complex, involving many different fields, and it’s easly for the denialist industry to create a climate of doubt and fear about mitigating?

When in doubt prudent support of life is required by moral beings. And life trumps economics – whether or not mitigating climate change will harm the economy – and I know from experience it will not, and I also understand failure to mitigate will not only grossly harm the economy, but also life.

And BTW, climate scientists are well aware of errors in the data and are taking care of them – like the urban heat island effect and instrumental problems – cleaning it up. They’ve actually thought of many more possible glitches than others have, and are constantly pointing out possible problems in each others works. They are not asleep on the job, and bec it is a highly competitive field, other climate scientists constantly yap at their heels to make them do right.

I’ve been viewing the process over 25 years – claims, counterclaims, corrections, improvements, better theories and better data supplanting earlier ones. That’s the way science works. And over the decades more and more scientists have come to trust that AGW is real, and other explanations just don’t fit the data.

So what do we do, wait for 50% of humanity to die out from its impacts in some 100 or 200 years before we jump on board and start turning out lights not in use? I don’t accept that do-nothing until we are 99.9% confident policy. And neither did JPII back in 1990, when he called on EVERYONE to mitigate the problem.

No.

We balance the known and obvious evil of making utility prices “skyrocket” very soon, against the speculative evil of rising oceans and tropical conditions in Chicago someday or other. And since discernible MMGW is contrary to the actual experience of essentially everyone while elderly and poor people could end up dying in the heat or cold (which we know for sure can happen. Remember that summer in France a few years ago when hundreds of old people died of the heat?) we opt for the safer and more certain course.

And one should turn off the lights not in use out of simple economic prudence. One doesn’t have to posit MMGW disaster to think that’s a good idea.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here we go. Some conservatives promoting a much better plan than Obama’s plan – I think it’s a fee and divident (tax neutral) thing: thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/310225-gop-aide-writing-anonymously-party-should-reclaim-climate-debate-

May the best plan win…and I’m thinking that would be the conservative one

But there is no plan. From the article:

“A conservative House GOP aide, writing under a pen name, says Republicans are screwing up on climate change but can seize the high ground from Democrats by promoting a “revenue-neutral” carbon tax.”

An anonymous aide, and this is supposed to be persuasive?

Think about this for a minute. This is just plain silly. You tax peoples’ utility use, then you give some of it back (less bureaucracy costs, of course). Why not just let it be less expensive in the first place, and tell people it’s a good idea not to leave all the lights on in the house? Al Gore and Obama won’t pay a bit of attention or reduce their energy wastage if it costs more or not and no matter what anybody says they ought to do. But ordinary people might.

 

[JamesCaruso]

one does not have to think the scientific community at large is corrupt, though there is no particular reason to suspect it of being less corrupt than those in any other endeavor. What person does not, for example, sometimes tell his boss what he thinks the boss wants to hear in order to gain favor or avoid disfavor?

I don’t think you can equate white lies to gain the boss’s favor with perpetrating worldwide scientific fraud. Also, I think what impresses most scientists is the clear logic and disciplined methodology that other scientists employ in their studies. I think in this respect scientists wish most of all to impress their fellow colleagues and they do this by producing highly professional studies.

One does need to recognize that “climate science” is not a precise, defined thing. All kinds of people from all kinds of disciplines are into it. Some are not identifiable as “scientists” at all. I am not a scientist, but it is my impression that to be truly “scientific” results have to be objectively falsifiable by experimentation. “Climate science” is not that way because it contains many speculative elements that can’t be confirmed or falsified by experimentation. That’s why we have scientists with exactly opposing views. Undoubtedly, some genuinely think they’re right.

I wasn’t talking about all kinds of people who are into “climate science,” as you call it, but the majority of the Academies of Science around the world. What is this penchant for minimizing the source of the unwanted opinions? Better that scientists work this out with scientific facts. There is disagreement within the scientific community; better that scientists focus on those disagreements and reconcile them. Everything else is just muddying the waters in an attempt to sway people to one POV or the other. If some scientists disagree with the larger consensus, they need to produce the facts that will change the consensus. I still haven’t bought into the notion that the larger number of scientists are in the tank for money and fame.

One needs to recognize that a lot of material people use is derivative. If flawed stuff gets accepted somewhere in the chain, a lot of flawed stuff flows from it. I don’t know what they call that in “climate science”, but it’s called “record creep” in medicine. Some assumption is made, or some testing error, and it just goes on and on and on, skewing everything that comes after it, sometimes with very unfortunate outcomes.

Then one needs to expose the flaws in any given study. But what you are saying, even if it turns out to be true, is unsubstantiated speculation at this point. Again, it appears the answer is for the scientific community to discipline its own. I can’t believe that scientists, especially those who do not belong to the consensus position, are not questioning the findings and the bases for the findings of other scientists and bringing forth data to disprove them. This is how science evolves to a more and more accurate understanding of the factors at play.