BasmntMadman wrote:
Maybe we should just contact him via email to clarify if possible?

I'm slammed right now with work, I'll explore an answer when time allows.

Regards

 miamizsun wrote: 
Here's something this here David noticed

In the slide "Impacts as a Chain of Inference."

Where does he get the number 11 in the expression (0.5)¹¹ or (0.2)¹¹? 

What he's referring to is probability of independent events all occurring - for example, 8 heads in 8 coin tosses, or a sequence 1,2,7,2,3 in 5 tosses of a die.  To calculate that, you multiply the probabilities of each event. 

I count 11 little squares in the slide, so that has to be where he gets the 11.  So he's saying that for global warming to be credible requires all 11 squares to be events that occur, each with probability of 0.5 or 0.2.  The first is "emissions".  Well, the probability of increased emissions in past years sure as hell isn't 0.5, it's 1. 

That's inaccuracy number one - he's playing some games with probability theory.  What makes more sense is if he's saying that there has to be all these events happening for global warming to be a problem:

increased emissions produce high atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases,
and high atmospheric levels lead to high radiative forcing,
and high radiative forcing leads to global response,
and global response leads to regional wind,
and humidity,
and temperature,
and rainfall,
and cloudiness,
and there are other factors influencing impact. 

I think he needs some or's in there after the "global response" block.  You don't need to have all the problems with wind, humidity, temperature, rainfall, and cloudiness for global warming to have a harmful effect.  In fact, rise of ocean levels would be the worst effect of all. The "other factors" influencing impact doesn't have to be part of the chain at all.  Plus, the first item, increased emissions produce high levels of greenhouse gases, has to have a probability of more than 0.5

It's games like this that reduce my confidence in this man - who berates the public for scientific illiteracy - radically. 

He also engages in emotional scare tactics himself, presenting a slide which implies that we'll become like North Korea if we cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. 

He mentions a couple pieces of work that differ from the global warming scenario, then use them as proof that the whole thing is absurd, and how could people be so stupid as to believe such absurdity?  Oh, it must be because they're whipped into a frenzy by the politicians and the liberal media. 

Polar bears thriving compared to 50 years ago?  I thought they were hunted to near-extinction 50 years ago, so of course their numbers will be higher than 50 years ago.  It turns out that it wasn't until 1973 that international efforts to curb intensive polar bear hunting were made. 
It turns out that their numbers are now stable, but are projected to decline by >30%.  Five of 19 subpopulations are in decline, which hardly seems thriving. The US Department of the Interior has classified them as a threatened species, but that's the government and they're in on the conspiracy, aren't they?

 fuh2 wrote: 
I love how you see that everything is always a right wing sponsored hoax.  The right is always at the bottom with everything wrong with this country.  The solution should be easy, a left wing dictatorship, that will fix everything wrong with the world.

OBTW:  here in Ohio, we have been able to sell excess energy back to the suppliers for years, be it in the form of electricity or natural gas.  Many people in NEO (that's North East Ohio) have gas wells on their properties.  Maybe you should lobby your state to allow electric meters to run backwards and sell back your excess energy to the provider as we do in Ohio.  We can't be the only state.  You infer that selling back excess energy is not allowed in the US.  Maybe that is another right wing hoax.  You should dig a little deeper and consider that there is more than one source of information.

 fuh2 wrote: 
fuh, feel free to read the material and objectively rebut.

Regards

 dionysius wrote: 
M, here's a scientist I believe wrote most of chapter 7 in the IPCC report. He reportedly agrees with some 90% of the info, however the 10% he disagrees with is apparently enough to get him labeled a contrarian.

Powerpoint

Regards

 fuh2 wrote: 
as far as I was aware this is not rocket science- many countries operate a system whereby you can sell power back to the grid.

My concern about this thread is how everyone talks about the science not being proven and tries to bring their own scientific theories to play.  There's nothing wrong with exploring and understanding the evidence of course but there seems to be a constant theme of "I won't believe the science until I personally have done my own independent research".

Now, of course some of the climate scientists are tainted by the UEA email scandal but why do we seem to need an amatuer scientist to prove every point now?  This strikes me as a little like some of the comments about the swine flu vaccination.  The science is there and it's good science- you can opt out if you personally wish but let the rest of the world and especially the governments get on with tackling this problem and stop putting up road blocks.

 miamizsun wrote: 
More Right wing Corporate fear mongering from the Carbon Industry. I get all my electricity from wind farms and I pay only 10% more for it. In Germany they offer Solar Power panels for customers subsidized by the govermnment and the EXCESS YOU CAN SELL BACK to the utility.   

 miamizsun wrote: 

There is justified cynicism, and then also woefully misplaced cynicism.

 dionysius wrote: 
M, how can you say that this obvious corruption means nothing? I must respectfully disagree.

There is more here.

You do realize how much money this carbon tax will generate right?

In Japan estimates are running $1400 & $8600 per household annually.

I don't deny that there is a major problem with pollution and climate change, I'm just questioning the legitimacy of the data, how much is due to man, and why they're going to tax the pants off of us.

Listen, any time corrupt government(s) get involved and wants to help us take care of an issue by taxing us, I get worried. Their track record speaks for itself.

If climate change is such a big deal, why don't they stop the wars, stop the bailouts for their "too big" to fail buddies and focus on taking care of a real issue?

Isn't it obvious government's priority is taxing, borrowing and spending?

I'm just asking....

I have a feeling we're about to take it in the a$$, and somehow the government/corporatists are about to ca$h in again.

Peace

 jadewahoo wrote: 

When I was young and stupid. Now that I am old and stupid, I recognize their fatuity.

 dionysius wrote: 
Is that chariots of the gods bloke? Jeez I haven't thought about him since I read that book when I was 15. 

 miamizsun wrote:
What do you prefer, a carbon tax that could be used to create millions of green industry jobs (like putting solar on every roof in America), or runaway global warming?   Now THAT is when we will be truly royally f'ed. 

————————————————————————————- 

Runaway Global Warming-
A Climate Catastrophe in the Making

What is runaway global warming, or "runaway heating"?

Runaway global warming is the accelerating (and soon to be unstoppable) chain reaction caused by release of the Arctic's vast stores of the very potent greenhouse gas (GHG), methane. The Arctic methane is released as the result of global warming heating the Arctic. That is called a positive carbon feedback.

This is as close as we've come to a literal End of the World Doomsday scenario. It is the single most catastrophically dangerous effect of global warming to all life on Earth.

The Arctic is already warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Regions in Siberia (where most of the carbon is) are warming even faster.

 

 dionysius wrote: 
Whoa. You say those names like you have actually read them.
?

 miamizsun wrote: 

Sorry, I don't know Portuguese.

And the email "scandal"—proves nothing. Zilch. Does nothing to invalidate science being done all over the world, not just in one small organization. There is no smoking gun, not one than can clean up all the smoking chimneys. This is a venial sin next to the mortal one of climate change denial. Look past this well-intentioned error to the much bigger error beyond it.

The hard choices do have to be made. That's why there is a denial movement, to delay (because it cannot be prevented, ultimately) the hard political and economic decisions. Denial is in the short-term interests of a few who are heavily invested in the present carbon economy. The carbon tax and cap-and-trade will benefit us all, in the long run. We have to see that short-term inconvenience is necessary for long-term welfare and, well, survival. For the natural world as well as us.

 dionysius wrote: 
M, I was referring to the hapless screw ups/CRU you speak of, here is a list with some of their emails with some parts bolded. I just can't look past this type of thing, especially when there is so much riding on it.(a worldwide tax of mythic proportion)

I'm very concerned they're going to use something like this (obviously manipulated data/evidence) to ram this "carbon tax" through and "f" us royally.

Regards

 fuh2 wrote: 

You don't have to respond to every crazy pet conspiracy theory out there. You're already right. You don't have to give Immanuel Velikovsky, Madame Blavatsky and Erich von Däniken the time of day. Let crank scholarship eat itself.

Beaker wrote:
Sure it is. Try archiving an ice core for twenty years.


Sure, but be prepared to be right back where we started. Being a sloppy codesmith or a belligerent partisan or even a dishonest scientist doesn't make your conclusions wrong.

 Beaker wrote: 

From what I understand, in 1998 there was an unusual global temperature spike that has not been matched until 2007.
The Carbon Industry PR machine has used that spike to try to show temperatures are now declining. The last 14 years are the hottest on record and the Himalaya glaciers are now 300-400 vertical feet lower than they were in 1920's.

The world pumps 28 BILLION TONS of CO2 into the air every year which is why atmospheric CO2  is increasing 2% a year.  CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas.

Before the industrial revolution began the atmosphere was at 275 Parts Per Million CO2. It is now 390 PPM and many climatologists agree that we have to get it back down to 350 PPM to keep climate change from spiralling out of control.

 Beaker wrote:
The original, raw data were thrown out to save room in a move to new quarters in the eighties, long before global warming was such a charged issue.  It's also before the current director of the CRU was in charge. Says so right in the linked article.  

The raw data may be lost, but the methods of processing it must be known, and the people who did it may well still be around, so I doubt that the trail to the original data is completely obscured. 

And when it's re-done and shows the same thing, then there will be some other noisy denunciation of it, because of...anything.  There's never going to be perfection in research. 

Open sourcing will have to be applied equally to the opponents of AWG as well as proponents.  If one side's confidential correspondence is revealed, then so should the other's.  That will be interesting.  The sword cuts both ways.