No matter who wins in the general election, climate change deniers will lose.

yeah, never had hurricanes before. attributing the costs of hurricanes to climate change seems perfectly honest.

come on man

 

The idea that you can capture and quantify all the variables impacted by climate change is dubious. That study apparently assumes specific natural disasters are the result of climate change. As if they could know what would have happened without said change.

You can get any conclusion you want from observational studies, just leave in the variables or data points that give you the results you want, and throw out what doesn't.

No one who says climate change is not a crisis gets fame and government funding (they become blackballed in fact), so you see how that might influence results.

I work in a lab environment, I know how easy and tempting it can be to skew experimental data, much less models or observational data.

In general I'm skeptical of people running around with their hair on fire telling me they know what the weather will be in 50 years, and that we can control it. And insulting those that disagree.

 

Allow me to bold a section

This means the current cause is not climate change, it means their model indicates climate change might makes these events worse or more frequent.

 

95% is close to two standard deviations in a normal distribution. None of the studies you link have a model that has been even close to that successful.

I can take HPLC data of river water and do much better than three standard deviations.

 

I'm going to say the same thing I have said I don't know how many times before.

For about the last 150 years we have been running a vast experiment on the atmosphere by dumping tons and tons of greenhouse gases into it. While its true the models aren't completely accurate and likely never will be wouldn't the sensible thing be to pay attention to those rather than just go along and hope for the best?

Also even if anthropogenic global warming is really bunk consider what we need to do to fight it. We conserve more energy, develop renewable energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and on coal which pollutes in other ways besides greenhouse gases. Even without global warming all of those things have a lot of benefit to our society and economy.

 

Most of the climate change hysteria is based on computer models. Computer models can be skewed very easily to produce a desired result.

 

fame, money, power

 

Right. Northside keeps harping on the evil oil corporations and absolutely steers clear of any sort of hidden agenda by those who stand to become extremely wealthy from the green game. For some reason he acts as if these people's intentions to "save the planet" are wholesome and pure and glosses over the idea that many people want to get in on the green game early, like an IPO, to make sure they reap the cash/grant/political awards. I have my doubts.

 

Higher taxes wouldn't mean climate change deniers lose. It may bolster their arguments about a massive conspiracy. Taxes that increase the annual cost of gasoline by 10% for the average consumer would not be strong enough motivation/ It won't compell them to spend 20-50% more on cars that run off non-greenhouse gas derived electricity.

As a result of such possible taxes, I think the average consumer may buy lighter, more fuel effecient vehicles but they will still drive gasoline consuming autos. Which is what we saw starting around 2007 when people began factoring in rising gasoline costs as a given.

 

I don't know what to laugh at more:
people who actually think scientists stand to become "rich" or "powerful" over climate science publications...
or
Northside trying to keep it real against all available hope


I used to play the Sisyphus role, but like all other political topics, people won't change their minds, no matter how much data you give them.

The great tragedy is that science became a more political topic late in the 20th century. Conservatives increasingly turn away from the media and science alike, as emblems of a culture gone wrong (I guess?)

Interesting article about this disturbing trend:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/conservatives-science-trust-survey_n_1389827.html

 

Nobel Peace Prize winner (fame and money)

Net Worth: $100 million (money)

Governments/world bodies don't hand out taxpayer grants to climate change skeptics. There's no money or fame in being a skeptic. Lots of money and fame for the alarmists.

 

just because you are a ruthless opportunist who cares for nobody but himself, doesn't mean everyone else is.