Post by Jethro_ukOn Tuesday, 29 November 2016 19:14:34 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
Post by TimWPost by TimWReally you confirm what I always thought, which is that a lot climate
change denial is not about failing to understand or even to believe
the facts, more a question of not giving a stuff. The attitude being
that we live in a developed country and we can pay for food and turn
up the aircon while the third world starves and Bangladesh goes under
water.
Really you confirm what I always thought, which is that a lot climate
change denial* is not about failing to understand or even to believe
the facts, more a question of not giving a stuff. The attitude being
that we live in a developed country and we can pay for food and turn up
the aircon while the third world starves and Bangladesh goes under
water.
And the classic evidence of that is Bob Geldof giving the finger to
some poor fisherman who just wanted to go fishing.
And te IPCXC who will cheerfully fliy 10m man-miles to hold a
conference to deny even basic electricity to third world countrys.
Post by TimWIt's why denying climate change is a feature of nasty right wing
politics - ukip and the Republican party, because it's the same
attitude of 'stuff everybody else, I'm alright and I don't care'.
It's why denying* climate change is a feature of nasty leftt wing
politics - Labour, and the green party, because it's the same attitude
of 'stuff everybody else, I'm alright and I don't care'.
Post by TimWIt makes you a massive dick with christmas tinsel on.
It makes you a massive dick with christmas tinsel off.
*Climate change denial: The insistence by people with no scientific
training or background, that the climate is changing due to human
activity, in plain contradiction of all the actual evidence to the contrary.
So what qualifications have you in meteorology or climatology eh Leo?
None at all but you keep spouting on.
Probably the same as yours ?
However, a good science grounding does help when interpreting complex
data and hypotheses - and allows dodgy presentation to be challenged.
Such as whiffy axes, and spurious comparisons.
Systems analysis and computer modelling was part of what I have a degree
in certainly.
And when I used a computer to model a circuit the first time, and the
then built hardware didn't produce a resemblance to the models output, I
learnt a lot more about computer models.
They are only as good as the assumptions you make, and if they contain
simplifications, its quite hard to say whether they will be nearly
right, or miles off.
So far the models used and analysed subsequently by the IPCC have all
been 'miles off'.
Patently they make false assumptions, and with the failure of reality to
produce the tropospheric hotspots predicted by the models it's not hard
to zero in on the problem.
The primary false assumption is that whatever late 20th century warming
there was, must have been because of man made CO2. The moment you make
that assumption, you have a problem. The science doesn't support that
much warming.
At this point they have two choices, the scientific one, and the career
oriented one. The scientific one would be to say 'well there's something
else going on, probably independent of CO2'.
The career promoting politically correct one is to say 'the effect of
CO2 is being *multiplied* by positive feedback.
This gives scary predictions, and makes CO2 the cause of them.
HOWEVER the feedback is via the temperature rise itself so that if its
correct *ANY* temperature rise or fall, due to clouds, volcanic
eruptions etc etc, will *ALSO* be magnified, and would also have been
magnified in the deep past. When historical eruptions are studied the
effect is not consistent with there being *any* positive feedback at
all. In fact the evidence suggests the feedback might after all be negative.
Furthermore, analysis of the temperature distribution of the models
shows that the rising temperatures will most be seen as equatorial
hotspots in the troposphere. These have simply not been found.
Add in te virtual cessation of warming in the 21st century, and you have
three solid nails in the coffin of AGW. Scientifically, it's dead.
Politically and academically, there is so much money and so many careers
riding on it it has to be turned into a zombie.
Going back to the science, the feedback mechanisms is posited to be via
mainly water vapour, a potent greenhouse gas present in much greater
quantities than CO2. However water vapour has a nasty habit of becoming
clouds when it gets to a certain concentration, and clouds reflect
sunlight, and radiate energy to space at night beyond the levels of the
CO2 laden atmosphere, and end up falling as rain or snow. Modelling
cloudiness has proved almost completely impossible, so the climate
models assume it stays more or less the same.
Cloudiness has the potential to alter inbound radiation by a factor of
ten or more, and has a similar effect on outbound radiation from the
ground at night.
And yet cloud variability with time is simply absent from the climate
models.
In short the models are worthless. They are based on *demonstrably*
false assumptions - water based feedback - and completely fail to model
the real feedbacks - water based *negative* feedback and the constant
chaotic nature of climate itself which is never static but always
changing everywhere. One of the phrases you will hear tossed around is
'null hypothesis' which is, broadly, 'could the changes in climate in
the last 50 years be explained without recourse to CO2?'
And the response of the real scientists, is 'yes, easily, and its been
much greater in the past'
But the response of the CAGW alarmists is 'computer says no....' . Their
MODELS say that the climate simply isn't that unstable of its own accord.
Science says that's because their models are junk.
Then out they come with the 'precautionary principle' which says that we
would be better off not altering the environment *in case* it has a bad
effect.
And instants reflection might show that it might just as well have a
GOOD effect.
And a further 30 seconds of reflection would reveal that somehow
application of the precautionary principle does NOT consist in 'doing
nothing' In fact it consists of pouring huge fractions of global GDP
into a futile exercises in reducing carbon emissions that even according
to their own models will have almost zero effect on anything. Presumably
they hope that the climate would reverse by itself anyway after they had
reduced the CO2. And they could claim moral victory. But Nature is a
fractious mistress, and she stopped warming years ago well before CO2
stopped increasing, and to date the only effect of excess CO2 is that
the semi-desert areas are becoming greener.
Then we can assess the impact of renewable energy.
First of all, why renewable energy? Its absolutely clear and studies
done a decade or more ago, and all the data conforms that if you want to
lower emissions from electricity generation, you have two strings to
your bow that are cost effective and massively carbon effective.
Hydroelectricity and nuclear power. Nothing else works anything like as
good at anything like comparable cost.
So why then are we building wind and solar farms?
Exactly. Why?
Then you have the actual behaviour of these so called climate alarmists.
Do they settle down and use video conferencing to meet up, so as to
avoid air traffic emissions? Do they sell their beach-side properties to
escape rising sea levels? Do they eschew the ministerial cars in favour
of a £100 bicycle?
Do they *FUCK*.
They are not in the least bit worried by climate change really, because
they *know* it's all a political and commercial marketing exercise in
manipulating public perception to sell policies with a radically
different purpose and products that need not actually work very well, if
at all. Not a real existential threat at all.
Meanwhile an army of 'useful idiots' pumped up by a steady stream of
articles in the BBC, the guardian the new scientist etc etc, plus
radical intervention at the school curriculum level that George Orwell
would be proud of, produces a generation of dull eyed slack jawed
climate faithful who can reproduce the marketing babble and the
on-message narrative at will, and actually believe they are thinking,
rather than simply regurgitating a story they have been told over and
over for the last 20 years.
That's closer to the truth of 'climate change' than most of what you read.
Now just watch the useful idiots lining up in protest...
No one is stupider than the person who thinks they are a little bit
smarter than you.
--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."
Josef Stalin
