Pessimistic about climate

[rustled]

Complex computer simulations have come to dominate the field of climate science, at the expense of traditional knowledge sources of theoretical analysis and challenging theory with observations. We are computing too much and thinking too little. This diminishes the opportunity for real breakthroughs in understanding and prediction. All of this is driven by the urgent needs of policy makers who can have agendas.

(my bold)

The war on hydrocarbons has caused more harm to people than climate change.

https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/07/harm-f ... te-change/

We don't need to be scientists to be able to see and understand that this is what has been happening.

And we certainly don't need to be scientists to speak up about how wrong it is.

[The Green Barbarian]

What is 100% balderdash is your repeated attempts at gaslighting.

People calling out lies and total BS isn't "Gaslighting", is calling out total and utter Bull. There is no "consensus" and in science, there should never be a "consensus". It's anti-science, and just plain DUMB, to expect a consensus on anything, especially something that is so unproven and basically not even true like man-made climate change. This "consensus" is a lie. Through and through.

[JLives]

I post links to actual studies supporting my position, you post a youtube video. Get it together man.

[Pappywinkle]

And you're thinking of politics, not "real" science.



And yet when you click on those links, you don't find any. Why is that?

Probably because you clicked on the links and chose not to read anything?

[Glacier]

‘Easy To Be Green?’: Renewables Leaving The World Broke And Powerless



https://climatechangedispatch.com/easy- ... powerless/

[rustled]

Blah blah blah meets la-la
Greta’s quest for world socialism
Having wasted seven minutes of my life watching Saint Greta address the Youth4Climate – yes, I know what you are thinking – there are only two conclusions to reach. First, she should have stayed at school to achieve a higher level of education and, secondly, third parties are clearly pulling the strings.

SNIP
Greta doesn’t believe in democracies because they deliver leaders who ‘drown her hopes and dreams in empty words and promises’. It clearly doesn’t occur to her that those same leaders may well be delivering to citizens with different hopes and dreams. But the arrogance of youth is preventing her from seeing anyone else’s point of view.


Now if I’d been sensible I would have hit the pause button at this point, but the last few minutes of her presentation are truly bizarre. It would warm the hearts of the leaders of past protest movements the world over. What do we want? (Fill in current fad) When do we want it? Now.

SNIP
Spurred on by his new missus, Johnson is clearly living in a complete la-la land when it comes to climate policy, with his remarks becoming increasingly removed from reality. At the very moment when UK electricity bills have increased by at least a hundred and forty quid a year (the average bill is around 1,300 pounds) and seven electricity suppliers have failed in one month, Boris declares to the United Nations General Assembly that ‘it is easy to be green’.

What bit of the energy crisis engulfing the world doesn’t he get?

https://spectator.com.au/2021/10/blah-b ... ets-la-la/

[The Green Barbarian]

Efforts to shift away from fossil fuels and replace oil and coal with renewable energy sources can help reduce carbon emissions but do so at the expense of increased inequality, according to a new Portland State University study.

Julius McGee, assistant professor of sociology in PSU's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and his co-author, Patrick Greiner, an assistant professor of sociology at Vanderbilt University, found in a study of 175 nations from 1990 to 2014 that renewable energy consumption reduces carbon emissions more effectively when it occurs in a context of increasing inequality. Conversely, it reduces emissions to a lesser degree when occurring in a context of decreasing inequality.

Their findings, published recently in the journal Energy Research & Social Science, support previous claims by researchers who argue that renewable energy consumption may be indirectly driving energy poverty. Energy poverty is when a household has no or inadequate access to energy services such as heating, cooling, lighting, and use of appliances due to a combination of factors: low income, increasing utility rates, and inefficient buildings and appliances.

McGee said that in nations like the United States where fossil fuel energy is substituted for renewable energy as a way to reduce carbon emissions, it comes at the cost of increased inequality. That's because the shift to renewable energy is done through incentives such as tax subsidies. This reduces energy costs for homeowners who can afford to install solar panels or energy-efficient appliances, but it also serves to drive up the prices of fossil fuel energy as utility companies seek to recapture losses. That means increased utility bills for the rest of the customers, and for many low-income families, increased financial pressure, which creates energy poverty.

"People who are just making ends meet and can barely afford their energy bills will make a choice between food and their energy," McGee said. "We don't think of energy as a human right when it actually is. The things that consume the most energy in your household -- heating, cooling, refrigeration -- are the things you absolutely need."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 151926.htm

[fluffy]

Consensus is far from science. No reputable self-respecting scientist would consider consensus meaningful (outside of influencing public opinion) let alone valid, or a step towards understanding.

Are you saying that a consensus of experts in a given field is not valid ? What other options are there ?

[Jlabute]

Consensus is far from science. No reputable self-respecting scientist would consider consensus meaningful (outside of influencing public opinion) let alone valid, or a step towards understanding.

Are you saying that a consensus of experts in a given field is not valid ? What other options are there ?

A 'consensus' can more easily be wrong than it can be right even from experts (which in a multi-disciplinary field there are extremely few). Even the scientific method if not followed can be wrong.

'Science' is the only option, it is slow but sure. Many talented people research outside of, or go against the grain of the accepted beliefs of the day because the majority can be wrong. Galileo was accused of heresy and continued his work under house arrest. He was soon isolated from society. Today we stand on top of his shoulders.

How does this relate to today? Today, governments fund CO2 research. Methods of CO2 storage, extraction, fuel synthesis, what does CO2 do in the atmosphere, what makes CO2, what eats CO2, what wavelengths does CO2 absorb, is CO2 saturated, CO2 this, CO2 that, and models there-of. On the other hand, little financing has gone to research other natural forms of warming or cooling or to discover things we don't know yet. We are working from assumptions that CO2 based warming is the main control knob.

The 'consensus' of the day is that climate sensitivity is high. So people like Al Gore and others campaign to shut down coal plants or temperatures will rise 1 degree every 20 years.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it.

Satellite observations make climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 appear to be low and remind us consensus can be wrong. Those who say the consensus is wrong are intelligent scientists no less deserving, but risk being labelled as heretics, like Judith Curry. Humanity hasn't changed much since the 16th century in this regards.


There are no STEM degree courses on How to do a Consensus.

[The Green Barbarian]

Nobel Prize in Physics awarded for making ‘guess’ about climate

This past week, Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann, and Giorgio Parisi were awarded the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics for research that led to early computer models of the Earth's climate. On the face of it, some people might think this is a grand achievement. In reality, unlike many Nobel-worthy accomplishments that are based on hard data or newly known processes, this one was simply a guess. Incredibly, we still don’t have an answer, more than 60 years later.

As the BBC reports,

“It is incredibly difficult to predict the long-term behaviour of complex physical systems such as the climate. Computer models that anticipate how it will respond to rising greenhouse gas emissions have therefore been crucial for understanding global warming as a planetary emergency.”

The Associated Press reported on Manabe’s work, saying, “…other climate scientists called his 1967 paper with the late Richard Wetherald “the most influential climate paper ever.” Manabe’s Princeton colleague, Tom Delworth, called Manabe “the Michael Jordan of climate.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... imate.html

[foenix]

Those who say the consensus is wrong are intelligent scientists no less deserving, but risk being labelled as heretics, like Judith Curry. Humanity hasn't changed much since the 16th century in this regards.

No one said she's a heretic but she does have her own agenda because some of her funding comes from the fossil fuel industry. It's not like she's going to bite the hand that feeds her.

[fluffy]

'Science' is the only option, it is slow but sure. Many talented people research outside of, or go against the grain of the accepted beliefs of the day because the majority can be wrong. Galileo was accused of heresy and continued his work under house arrest. He was soon isolated from society. Today we stand on top of his shoulders.

So by individual persistence, did not Galileo lay the groundwork for what became a consensus ? The history of the environmental movement is replete with Galileo's who raised awareness until government was obliged to take on the research themselves or at least free up funding so that the private and academic sectors could take on research themselves. There is also no shortage of private institutes following the same path through charitable funding.

The idea that a "rebel" going against the consensus is always right is pretty much a false start, those who formed the basis of today's environmental awareness once went up against the consensus of the day themselves.

[The Green Barbarian]

The idea that a "rebel" going against the consensus is always right is pretty much a false start, those who formed the basis of today's environmental awareness once went up against the consensus of the day themselves.

Yes and it's too bad so many have fallen for this scam. This manufactured "consensus" has set back mankind by generations, as so many resources are dumped into a fairy tale instead of moving humanity forward with disease cures, clean drinking water and space exploration. It is to weep.

Meanwhile in Lebanon....

Most of Lebanon loses electricity after power stations run out of fuel

Lebanon's two major power stations shut down Saturday due to a fuel shortage which has resulted in power outages in most areas in the country, according to local media outlets.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/mo ... d=msedgntp

Quick Greta!! Hop on your sailboat and get over to Lebanon and scream "How dare you!! and "BLAH BLAH BLAH!!" at the Lebanese people for using diesel to generate electricity! Get them all on wind power! What are you waiting for??

[Jlabute]

'Science' is the only option, it is slow but sure. Many talented people research outside of, or go against the grain of the accepted beliefs of the day because the majority can be wrong. Galileo was accused of heresy and continued his work under house arrest. He was soon isolated from society. Today we stand on top of his shoulders.

So by individual persistence, did not Galileo lay the groundwork for what became a consensus ? The history of the environmental movement is replete with Galileo's who raised awareness until government was obliged to take on the research themselves or at least free up funding so that the private and academic sectors could take on research themselves. There is also no shortage of private institutes following the same path through charitable funding.

The idea that a "rebel" going against the consensus is always right is pretty much a false start, those who formed the basis of today's environmental awareness once went up against the consensus of the day themselves.

Galileo lay the groundwork for what became provable, testable, reproducible science which at the time his beliefs were not consensus. Today, we are pretty sure the earth travels around the sun. There is a consensus on this, but the consensus is open to change at any time and it is not what makes something provable, reproducible, or correct, and therefore irrelevant to a scientist. All the more power to people who want to do research even when there is a consensus. Who goes with or against a consensus is irrelevant and scientists should just do proper science. The process of science never asks..."what is everyone else thinking so I can reproduce a scientific test result."

Michael Crichton:

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

The consensus track-record so to speak is quite poor, if one is relying on consensus. When it comes to climate, John Cook introduced the 97% consensus which was not well defined and ended up incorrect as scientists spoke up to say their papers had been misrepresented. After that, both sides were fighting over a number... 50%! 99%! 2%! 100%! Back and forth trying to persuade public opinion. It is embarrassing. Climate science is not settled and there is little consensus on anything, otherwise models might actually be accurate.

[JLives]

The idea that a "rebel" going against the consensus is always right is pretty much a false start, those who formed the basis of today's environmental awareness once went up against the consensus of the day themselves.

Yes and it's too bad so many have fallen for this scam. This manufactured "consensus" has set back mankind by generations, as so many resources are dumped into a fairy tale instead of moving humanity forward with disease cures, clean drinking water and space exploration. It is to weep.

Meanwhile in Lebanon....

Most of Lebanon loses electricity after power stations run out of fuel

Lebanon's two major power stations shut down Saturday due to a fuel shortage which has resulted in power outages in most areas in the country, according to local media outlets.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/mo ... d=msedgntp

Quick Greta!! Hop on your sailboat and get over to Lebanon and scream "How dare you!! and "BLAH BLAH BLAH!!" at the Lebanese people for using diesel to generate electricity! Get them all on wind power! What are you waiting for??

You not understanding science doesn't make it a scam.