Bret Stephens first column as NYT science editor

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

is really good, IMO

Altho it has created a major pushback already. Which is a shame - then again, I'm a mouthbreathing AGW skepticish person, so take my thoughts on this with a large grain of salt.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html?_r=0

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

It is amazing that he can write an article that they so totally do not
read. Or if they do read it, the points simply go over their head.

And the profound ignorance of these commenters, many of whom write
very well, is astounding. I saw multiple instances of the "97% of
scientists" business, totally and utterly disproven and false,
parroted as if it is a winning point. They try and use the 1.5C to
4.5C ECS estimate scale from the IPCC AR5 and intimate that the 4.5 is
just as likely as the 1.5. They apparently have no knowledge of the
ERBE measurements which increasingly suggest ECS of 1.5C or below.
They never discuss the huge points of uncertainty in the whole
methodology of using climate models with cloud feedback essentially
as a single constant. They don't acknowledge the suspect nature of
the historic temperature record, nor do they discuss the recent
pause in warming nor the failure of climate models to be predictive.

In essence, they take his caution on asserting certainty and say,
"We understand, but it is a certainty." No, they don't understand. And
they don't convince as they make fallacious argument after fallacious
argument. They posit continual straw men and endless false analogies.
They go to tiresome false equivalencies like equating skepticism
toward a climate disaster with denying the harm of smoking, or pushing
creationism. They continually use the semantic tarbrush "denier",
which was invented to try and equate climate change skeptics with
holocaust deniers.

I find it profoundly depressing that such a large portion of our
"elite" people are so ignorant and so astonishingly devoid of common
sense. They don't understand that employing all of these fallacious
arguments only weakens the point they are trying to get across, and
they aren't interested in stopping the practice either.

--
Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others
cannot keep it from themselves. -- James Barrie

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 8:05:51 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:

> I find it profoundly depressing that such a large portion of our
> "elite" people are so ignorant and so astonishingly devoid of common
> sense. They don't understand that employing all of these fallacious
> arguments only weakens the point they are trying to get across, and
> they aren't interested in stopping the practice either.

There's a buck to be made.

[wolfie]

"Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger" wrote

> There's a buck to be made.

I love that argument.

If you're a climate scientist, do you try to get
grant money, or just accept the millions being
paid by parties interested in proving climate
change is wrong/overestimated/etc?

There's money on both sides - but it's probably
easier to get big money from the con- side.

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:28:37 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
> "Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger" wrote
>
> > There's a buck to be made.
>
> I love that argument.
>
> If you're a climate scientist, do you try to get
> grant money, or just accept the millions being
> paid by parties interested in proving climate
> change is wrong/overestimated/etc?

We can ask Nye and Tyson, among others.

> There's money on both sides - but it's probably
> easier to get big money from the con- side.

I think we'll have different views of what is the 'pro' side and what is 'con', and that's fine.

But it is a shifting sands deal: Al Gore wasn't getting money from Big Oil, but Armand Hammer (Oxy Oil) was a raging commie and a big contributor to the Gore family (and Nixon, too...)

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-04-29, Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger <damon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:28:37 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
>> "Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger" wrote
>>
>> > There's a buck to be made.
>>
>> I love that argument.
>>
>> If you're a climate scientist, do you try to get
>> grant money, or just accept the millions being
>> paid by parties interested in proving climate
>> change is wrong/overestimated/etc?
>
> We can ask Nye and Tyson, among others.
>
>> There's money on both sides - but it's probably
>> easier to get big money from the con- side.
>
> I think we'll have different views of what is the 'pro' side and what is 'con', and that's fine.

Someone is going to have to detail the money on the skeptical side if
there is to be any contention at all. Fact is, it is dwarfed by the
billions and billions on the alarmist side.

In fact, that is much of the reason there are so many "climate change"
studies. It's where the money is. If there was a lot on the other side,
you'd see a lot of studies there. You don't

--
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Dick Feynman

[wolfie]

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote

> In fact, that is much of the reason there are so many "climate change"
> studies. It's where the money is. If there was a lot on the other side,
> you'd see a lot of studies there. You don't

A less skeptical person might say "that's where the science is." You
don't see a lot of studies on the denial side because they can't be
supported by facts.

IOW:

In fact, that is the reason there are so many "round earth" studies.

It's where the money is. If there was a lot on the other side, you'd

see a lot of studies on the there. You don't.

FWIW, I'm not sold on the alarmist part. There's too much of the
"what if OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" going on, and, yes, that's
annoying.

But the following seems unarguable:
a) Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased, due to man.
b) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
c) Increases in greenhouse gases cause increases in temperature.
d) Increases in temperature cause population disruptions (famine,
sea rise, etc.)

Given that, I think it's simple and prudent to do *something* to
reduce our contribution. Reducing coal in favor of natural gas
is one - and good economically too. So's increasing funding for
alternatives, like solar and wind. Why are there houses in Phoenix
without a bank on the roof? And so on.

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:28:37 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:

Absolutely incorrect. Obama's EPA was doling out more grant money than all the skeptic money combined.

Doug

[Some dued]

Despite what you may think, the people at the EPA do not have personal fortunes resting on the outcome.

[Some dued]

Actually now that Scotty's in charge there may be a personal fortune at stake IYKWIM.

[wolfie]

"Emperor Wonko the Sane" wrote

It's not the total money; it's how much you can get.

Lots of medical research grant money out there, too,
but Big Pharma seems to pay more for researchers
willing to work for them. Isn't Exxon et al willing to
pay top dollar for researchers willing to work for them?
They're sure willing to pay for politicians...

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 11:36:39 AM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote
>

> But the following seems unarguable:
> a) Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased, due to man.
> b) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
> c) Increases in greenhouse gases cause increases in temperature.
> d) Increases in temperature cause population disruptions (famine,
> sea rise, etc.)

It also seems unarguable:
A) Co2 levels have varied tremendously over time - up to 20x higher
B) C02 is one of several GHGs and GHGs are just one influence on temps
C) There are clearly non-anthropogenic causes of GHG & temp variations
D) The sea levels have been rising steadily since the end of the last ice age - about 400' in the last 20k years.
E) The temps have been rising steadily since the end of the last ice age.

I'd add an F) about the CO2 lag which has been 800 yearsish but given chart sensitivity and dating procedures, I'm not entirely sold

Less worries about CO2 and more concerns over other anthropogenic influences like terraforming, dams and logging - and I'd be curious.

The relentless drumbeat over CO2 fuels my skepticism - especially since the song sung is *always* bad.

Where is the greatest biodiversity - the teeming jungles of the Amazon or frozen tundra of Siberia?

I'm willing to give strong credence to a warmer earth being a better earth - easier to grow food, less fuel required for heating and more plant food to help replenish our biodiversity.

Then again, I did get my quarterly dividend check from Chevron, so wtf do I know?

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-04-30, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 11:36:39 AM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
>> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote
>>
>> But the following seems unarguable:
>> a) Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased, due to man.
>> b) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
>> c) Increases in greenhouse gases cause increases in temperature.
>> d) Increases in temperature cause population disruptions (famine,
>> sea rise, etc.)
>
> It also seems unarguable:
> A) Co2 levels have varied tremendously over time - up to 20x higher
> B) C02 is one of several GHGs and GHGs are just one influence on temps
> C) There are clearly non-anthropogenic causes of GHG & temp variations
> D) The sea levels have been rising steadily since the end of the last ice age - about 400' in the last 20k years.
> E) The temps have been rising steadily since the end of the last ice age.
>
> I'd add an F) about the CO2 lag which has been 800 yearsish but given chart sensitivity and dating procedures, I'm not entirely sold

And I would add a G) that is the most important key -- warming due
solely to CO2 is simply not dangerous. That is a fact that any climate
scientist will agree with. Catastrophic anthropomorphic global
warming (CAGW) theory relies on a postulated and certainly not
proven hypothesis that water vapor, triggered by the warming due to
CO2, will cause additional warming by increased levels in the
mid-troposphere. This hypothesis is on life support because the hot
spot that should appear in the mid-troposphere is not there.

ERBE measurements, radiosonde (i.e. balloon) measurements of temperature
in the mid-troposphere, and other evidence simply don't support this theory.
Their only defense at this point is more data massage.

If you torture data enough, it will confess -- and climatologists are
veritable Torquemadas of science.

Bottom line is this -- nothing conclusive shows equilibrium climate
sensitivity above 1.5C, and the reason you don't see a lot of announcements
from climatologist recently is nothing has come to light. All the pronouncement
is from non-scientist climate alarmists who profess a level of certainty the
scientists of the IPCC do not.

--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown

[Michael Press]

In article <c70736d5-5553-4145...@googlegroups.com>,

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> E) The temps have been rising steadily since the end of the last ice age.

Only until 6000 years ago. Steadily declining since then.
See Holocene optimum.

Technically we are in an ice age at this moment---the Quatenary ice age.
Currently in an interglacial period.

--
Michael Press

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Looking at the reaction, I believe the collective left has literally gone
insane.

And on climate, they are in a collective Dunning-Kruger effect of massive
proportions. You have huge numbers of people who obviously know nothing about
science proclaiming absolute certainty on something that real scientists are
not at all certain about.

If your own most adamant gurus proclaim there is a 10% chance their theory is
wrong, there is probably a much bigger chance that someone has better perception
than you do. A large percentage of the people coming down on Stephens have no
scientific training, which is proven by their insistence that they are most
certainly right. You cannot trust a single thing they say, and they are best
ignored.

I have a personal policy of ignoring anyone who uses the phrase "climate
denier" after they are informed that it is nothing but a semantic tarbrush
intended to evoke holocaust denial as an equivalency.

--
People who want to share their religious views with you
almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Dave Barry

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-04-28, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's a statement from him:

I would just say, for the record: Some of my more intemperate
critics are doing an awfully good job of proving the point of
the column. That's too bad, since one point of the column was
to help the climate-advocacy community improve the quality of
its persuasion.

I am by no means an expert in climate science, and I take it
as fact that the earth is warming, perhaps dangerously so. Nor
am I infallible: Human fallibility was my very point.

That said, I have reasonably good credentials in writing and
reading. Clearly some of my critics need remedial education in
these basic subjects.
-- Bret Stephens

--
My children didn't have my advantages; I was born into
abject poverty. -- Kirk Douglas

[Michael Press]

In article <slrnogcrlp.d...@kim.perusion.com>,

"You are a climate-denier denier."

--
Michael Press

[Some dued]

No he's not.

[Michael Press]

In article <52c6cc9c-a5c4-401d...@googlegroups.com>,
Some dued <theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No he's not.

So---you deny it.

--
Michael Press

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

lol

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-04-29, wolfie <bgbd...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote
>
>> In fact, that is much of the reason there are so many "climate change"
>> studies. It's where the money is. If there was a lot on the other side,
>> you'd see a lot of studies there. You don't
>
> A less skeptical person might say "that's where the science is." You
> don't see a lot of studies on the denial side because they can't be
> supported by facts.
>
> IOW:
>
> In fact, that is the reason there are so many "round earth" studies.
> It's where the money is. If there was a lot on the other side, you'd
> see a lot of studies on the there. You don't.

More attempts at red herrings. Amazing.

OK, here is a reasoned argument from a real scientist. I will leave
you with that. You won't understand, I am sure -- your progressive
political religious belief system doesn't allow it. But you'll have
the info, in an accessible form, from an MIT scientist of renown.
You will really have no excuse for being so wrongheaded if you claim
to know and honor science.

http://bit.ly/2qIKdHE

--
Some people have twenty years of experience, some people have
one year of experience twenty times over. -- Anonymous

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Guy disagrees with claims that the oceans are becoming more acidic thusly:

"In point of fact, the ocean is basic rather than acidic (ie, its ph is always appreciably higher than 7, and there is no possibility of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 bringing it down to 7; note that ph is a measure of acidity or basicness: values greater than 7 are basic and less than 7 acid.), and the purported changes simply refer to making the ocean a bit less basic."

So it's not that they're becoming more acidic. They're just becoming less basic.

Since you wanted to point out that he's an mit prof, it's worth calling out that every other member of his department at mit put their name to a letter saying they believe his interpretations are wrong:

http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump

Good on mit for having both views represented in their department, though.

No one expects or demands absolute concensus. Science needs skepticism to keep it from becoming religion.

Anyhow, interesting article. Worth reading even if there are a couple passages like the one I quoted that are sort of eye roll worthy.

Cheers.

[JGibson]

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:12:08 AM UTC-4, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> Guy disagrees with claims that the oceans are becoming more acidic thusly:
>
> "In point of fact, the ocean is basic rather than acidic (ie, its ph is always appreciably higher than 7, and there is no possibility of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 bringing it down to 7; note that ph is a measure of acidity or basicness: values greater than 7 are basic and less than 7 acid.), and the purported changes simply refer to making the ocean a bit less basic."
>
> So it's not that they're becoming more acidic. They're just becoming less basic.
>
> Since you wanted to point out that he's an mit prof, it's worth calling out that every other member of his department at mit put their name to a letter saying they believe his interpretations are wrong:
>
> http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump
>

I see this guy is among the signatories:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/nation/la-na-scientist-climate-20110105

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Here you are, trying to do science by consensus again. Science doesn't operate
by consensus.

You guys are tiresome. You *should* know that this is fallacious, yet in response
to real argument and evidence you wheel out the same old fallacies. In a debate,
you've lost. Period.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

So, con, what science have you done here? You know, other than preferring the minority opinion because it matches your political biases.

I assume you've analyzed data - what are you using, R? Python with scipy / numpy / pandas? Slinging some scala w/ spark?

Surely you're not doing your deep independent analysis using excel?

Sort of hypocritical to simultaneously whine and cry that other views aren't being heard on this issue, then declare the debate over and yourself the victor. Just a thought.

"Let me prove it with an appeal to authority!"

"Ok, all these other equivalent authorities come to a different conclusion, though..."

"Science isn't about consensus!".

Dude, science isn't *settled* by consensus, but consensus does have meaning.

https://ncse.com/project-steve

Cheers.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

That's also an interesting article (jgibson) - worth reading both that and the one con linked.

Only 6% of scientists identify as conservative? Compared to 55% identifying as liberal?

That itself would be interesting to study and understand.

Cheers.

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

Follow the (grant) money.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

How so, damon? Please give me some details - point me to refuted studies that were falsified in the pursuit of grant money.

Here, I'll start:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22223190

Oh, wait, that was the big analysis that conservatives always rolled out to back "austerity measures". Oops.

In that case, it was a PhD student planning to confirm the initial conclusions... but the data didn't hold up.

Shouldn't there be a bunch of similar instances for climate change? Would be a great way for an enterprising PhD candidate to make their name.

Cheers.