Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[Farmer]

Any one for Hubris?

The market is in massive oversupply - not worth anything :-)

[Rob C]

Predicting climate change based on past data is like predicting winning lotto numbers based on those winning in the past.

Hey, it's a great method; comes close second to birthdays!

Rob

[Ray]

Anyone for Hubris?

Not only is hubris a part of the problem, in thinking that we can control our climate simply by reducing minuscule amounts of CO2 and methane emissions, but it seems quite clear there is a degree of scientific fraud involved in the AGW scare.

I've just come across the following article on the Michael Mann court case, published today.
https://principia-scientific.org/should-michael-hockey-stick-mann-be-prosecuted-for-climate-fraud/

"No scientist has abused the court system like Michael Mann. Penn State’s controversial alarmist climate professor has not only politicized the science but has resorted to repeated court action to silence his critics.

Mann’s most shocking legal gambit was stooping to sue for libel 79-year-old retired Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball. Ball, although a pensioner, remains a staunch and popular critic of climate alarm. For almost two decades Ball has been in the vanguard of independent scientists calling out Mann’s secret science; science bought and paid for with our tax dollars.

When asked to show his disputed code Mann’s response was:
“I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation…. I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property…”

So much for saving the planet from catastrophe, Mikey!

In the seven years this ridiculous, multi-million dollar SLAPP suit has run Mann has stooped to every trick to prevent open court examination of crucial equations that created his iconic ‘hockey stick’ graph. While Mann is personally wealthy and extremely well funded behind the scenes by deep-pocketed Big Green fanatic, David Suzuki, Dr Ball has relied on global grassroots backing from ordinary men and women sick of government corruption."

[Alan Goldhammer]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Bart!

My whole life I’ve been trying to find the secret to investing and getting rich. I tried various investment models, in vain. Turns out, as you rightly stated, all it takes is that the model fits the past. Off I go to become a billioner investor. Along the way, I’ll discard the disclaimer on every investment prospesctus, you know, that stupid warning, how “past results do not guarantee future returns.”

but a copy of Benjamin Graham's 'The Intelligent  Investor' it's  the best 'simple' book.   You can then move up to Graham and Dodd's 'Security Analysis' which goes over thing in major depth.   You could also just buy  some Berkshire Hathaway stock.   The great thing about the latter choice is you b can attend the annual meeting!!!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... as a part time amateur psychologist...

And a full-time new-religion fanatic? 😉

[jeremyrh]

The thing I find most interesting about this thread as a part time amateur psychologist is that some people "think" that they can over-turn science and reality with the force of their opinion on a photographic centric web site.

Anyone for Hubris?

The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.

[Alan Goldhammer]

The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.

  Yes it certainly is frustrating! Let me try to n use some examples from my own field that might help clarify things for Ray and the others.   I spent my career on the pharmaceutical industry,  primarily in regulatory affairs.   Pharmaceuticals and vaccines are always approve with imperfect data.   If we waited for 100% knowledge of efficacy and safety it b would be years before a product was approved.   We make assumptions using statistical models as to how to structure the clinical trial.   This leads to proof that the drug worked for its intended purpose and SOME side effects.   The trial does not provide information on all the drugs uses, that only comes with wide  spread use (most trial population sizes are 5000 patients).

Safety is a critical factor depending on the use of v the drug or vaccine.  We do not want products given to healthy children to pose significant risk.   Say  you have a rare side effect of 1 in 10,000.  To have a reliable chance of seeing this in a trial means that 30,000 patients need to be studied.  Most vaccine trials are of b this size  or larger.   In addition,  safety is monitored for as long as the drug is on the market and new updates or warnings are routine.

Climate science is no different in terms of approach.   Data is constantly coming in and models refined.   This is the point Bart and I have been trying to make on several threads now.   

[RSL]

Data is constantly coming in and models refined.

Like the "refinement" of the "hockey stick," which turned out to be the horse-hockey stick? That's refinement all right. Good point, Alan.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Not only is hubris a part of the problem, in thinking that we can control our climate simply by reducing minuscule amounts of CO2 and methane emissions, but it seems quite clear there is a degree of scientific fraud involved in the AGW scare.

Ah, that sums up your position nicely.

Minuscule amounts of CO2:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-in-the-world/
" In a pre-industrialized society, the causes of carbon dioxide emissions consisted of non-energy related sources like rocks, animals (including humans) and geological hot spots such as volcanoes and geysers. In 1751, the first year where data is available, some 11 million metric tons of carbon dioxide was produced worldwide. In the 1960s, the level of CO2 was around 1,000 times higher than in 1751. In 2015, some 36.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide was emitted globally."

Scientific Fraude:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources.

Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball
Ball has worked with Friends of Science and Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which opposes the consensus scientific opinion of significant anthropogenic global warming,[6] and is a former research fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Ball also rejects the consensus scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas that raises global temperature."

Because the IR absorption (Greenhouse effect) characteristics of CO2 have been known since something like the mid 19th century, it must be that he denies that it raises global temperatures. But who knows, maybe he also denies it is a gas with greenhouse properties.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

  Yes it certainly is frustrating! Let me try to n use some examples from my own field that might help clarify things for Ray and the others.   I spent my career on the pharmaceutical industry,  primarily in regulatory affairs.   Pharmaceuticals and vaccines are always approve with imperfect data.   If we waited for 100% knowledge of efficacy and safety it b would be years before a product was approved.   We make assumptions using statistical models as to how to structure the clinical trial.   This leads to proof that the drug worked for its intended purpose and SOME side effects.   The trial does not provide information on all the drugs uses, that only comes with wide  spread use (most trial population sizes are 5000 patients).

Safety is a critical factor depending on the use of v the drug or vaccine.  We do not want products given to healthy children to pose significant risk.   Say  you have a rare side effect of 1 in 10,000.  To have a reliable chance of seeing this in a trial means that 30,000 patients need to be studied.  Most vaccine trials are of b this size  or larger.   In addition,  safety is monitored for as long as the drug is on the market and new updates or warnings are routine.

Climate science is no different in terms of approach.   Data is constantly coming in and models refined.   This is the point Bart and I have been trying to make on several threads now.   

Data is coming in, but the time frame for proving climate projections are decades unlike medical trials.  Plus, if the medical trials made an error, you'll know pretty quickly once the drug is released for use. It's not the same for climate.

[Alan Klein]

The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.

I'd say there are more suckers here than idiots.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.

Thanks for your sympathy, but I find it educational for myself (and who knows for some other readers), to debunk Fake news (a modern day menace to society).

I've learned a lot of new things myself over the years, and I generally think that already having done some of the research (a.o. for my local Air Quality Measuring activities, a Citizen Science project), it might also be beneficial for others when I share some of that info, be it on Photography topics or other topics that affect our lives or even health.

And also don't worry, I do not suffer from the illusion that I can convince a denier to change his/her views, on the contrary. I do hope that the information may be helpful for all others, thank goodness the majority (although often less vocal).

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

All types of pollution are bad for the planet and its inhabitants. If anybody thinks otherwise, he is not only denier, but also a type of person characterized in Jeremy's post.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

All types of pollution are bad for the planet and its inhabitants. If anybody thinks otherwise, he is not only denier, but also a type of person characterized in Jeremy's post.

I tend to agree, but it is a bit of an insult for idiots. An idiot can't help himself, a Denier chooses to act that way ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Jeremy Roussak]

The heat/light ratio of this thread is deteriorating, and the ad hominem element is creeping back in. I don't wish to censor discussion, despite the urge, nay command, from some (one),  but I may be forced into it.

Let's return to repeatedly stating our respective positions: it might not illuminate much, still less convert, but it entertains.

Jeremy

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Let's return to repeatedly stating our respective positions: it might not illuminate much, still less convert, but it entertains.

Absolutely agree. Serious fun.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What companies like Shell knew, back in the '80 ...

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/05/17/shell-knew-charting-thirty-years-corporate-climate-denialism

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

The heat/light ratio of this thread is deteriorating, and the ad hominem element is creeping back in. I don't wish to censor discussion, despite the urge, nay command, from some (one),  but I may be forced into it.

Let's return to repeatedly stating our respective positions: it might not illuminate much, still less convert, but it entertains.

Jeremy

I think I already said this would happen back on the first page of this thread,.

[Alan Klein]

Predicting climate change based on past data is like predicting winning lotto numbers based on those winning in the past.

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."
--Nils Bohr, Nobel laureate in Physics

[Jeremy Roussak]

I think I already said this would happen back on the first page of this thread,.

I know it's what you like to think, Alan, but as I pointed out the last time you made that smugly self-satisfied assertion, it isn't true. The thread continues, on its 20th page now and for the most part in decent humour, needing only minor nudges from me to keep it on track.

Perhaps the failure of the thread you moderated wasn't entirely the fault of the contributors.

Jeremy