Richard Muller: converted climate skeptic

[Guest Gee]

That was an interesting read, however, I think the problem of the random walk, is that it by definition will not be able to differentiate between randomness and a self-correcting system anyway, so you expect to find the result you get here.

 

Like, you could by the same principle plot the wiggling of earth in orbit and plot it against a random walk and then come up with the result that there's no statistical significance to differentiate between the trend created by gravity and randomness and then conclude that gravity might just be chance.

 

Link to an article explaining the statistics. Though I gotta admit, it's a bit over my knowledge cap

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/not-a-random-walk/

 

Statistics is beyond me without study. As Rosencrantz alluded to (I think?) it has not been proved that the earth is driven by entropy maximisation (or free energy minimisation) as a thermodynamic system is so the fluctuation in temperature cant be attributed to the fluctuation theorem. (I think some guys are trying to do this though).

 

Presumably a probability density distribution would defined for the fluctuations, be them temperature or wiggles. If a driving force were to be introduced it would alter the magnitude and/or frequency of temperature or wiggle fluctuations. If a sample were taken of the combined fluctuations and driven fluctuations then a statistical test could be done to determine if the sample is described by the fluctuation probability density distribution or not.

[Somewhere]

Returning to the original post, Richard Muller has long backed the AGW cause; it's not accurate to call him a "converted climate sceptic" as the MSM generally do. He did break ranks to criticise the "Climategate" scientists and to criticise the Mann et al "hockey stick" papers that claimed to show unprecedented warming and that were used to persuade governments to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. He criticised Mann's papers at a time when it wasn't fashionable to do so, although nowadays climate scientists tend to agree with his view of those papers, which were ferociously defended by the climate establishment and their followers at the time. But even in criticising them back in 2003, he said

"My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate".

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate".

 

This is kind of insane to me. If you consider the fact that he is calling what has reduced climate deaths by 98% since inception and made the climate far more live-able than any time years past a pollutant, does this not suggest a serious misanthropy on his part? 

 

To me, even though I'm not close to an expert on this topic, it brings into question the entire credibility of the man. If he is not measuring something as a pollutant in terms of human benefit, and if he is not measuring the effect it has on the livability of the climate for the purpose of humans as a whole, isn't he kind of a misanthropic genocidal maniac in disguise as a scientist?

 

And if he is measuring fossil fuels in those terms, then where is the evidence that it is a pollutant or detrimental to the climate, and compared to what alternatives?

[Torero]

Anyone, but a climate "scientist" in particular, who calls carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is insane and does not understand nature.

 

Everybody, not 1 single oxygen-based lifeform excluded, is exhaling CO2 every second of their lives.

 

To call exhaling "pollution" is utter insanity and merely shows a complete lack of understanding of how nature works.

 

Not to mention that mankind is incapable of changing climate on a large scale. On a small scale (microclimate) we do it all the time; urbanization and deforestation/changing the course of surface waters are changing microclimates but that does not mean we have any influence on "global climate". That does not even exist; a coined term by politicians as "global warming" simply cannot exist.

 

I am studying our beautiful planet for many years and System Earth is far far far beyond our reach of change by human hands (or exhausts, for that matter).

 

It's already impossible to burn all the fossil fuel on Earth (recovery factors of oil fields barely reach 45%!) but even if we could, it would not change any climate; nature does simply what it always does; re-equilibrate based on new input.

[Torero]

TheRobin,

 

I reply in the most popular of the climate topics (which is even started by you I see) to not spoil the information-driven Central topic.

 

I think what's really missing to have a reasoned discussion is an actual talk with a climate scientists. It's very easy to "rebut" all the models if you don't have someone nearby who can tell you when you're not making sense or misunderstanding things (which seems to happen a lot in the skeptic community).

 

"An actual talk with a climate scientist"? Who do you propose? A corrupted one, politicized, or an independent researcher not part of the game? Stefan has interviewed multiple experts, the links are presented in the OP of the central topic, just for that reason so you (or anyone else) can check it out.

 

The rebuttal of the "models" has been done by various people and can be found in the links in the OP of the Central topic. Also the video (in Dutch) in the 3rd post shows you that, if you have trouble understanding, let me know.

 

I have modeled for many years myself. My work involved not climate (only), yet System Earth (sedimentary basins all around the world).

 

First of all: a model is an approximation of reality. A model can never ever be 100% correct. It is impossible to know all the parameters 100% and thus model them in such a way that your model describes exactly how the system works. That's a given, a reality any modeler has to live with. Earth sciences are very complex, not only due to the thousands of factors themselves, but mainly because of the dynamics; changes through time.

 

For any model (climate, geological, financial or any other) to be taken seriously it needs to fit calibration data. That data needs to be external and is used as a "blind" test; as long as the model doesn't fit the calibration data, it is by definition not a good model.

 

And that's exactly where this IPCC crap goes wrong. The predictions/projections made by the report (a distortion of the serious science of serious scientists) ALL have failed. They ALL projected ongoing warming in the 2000s/2010s which was not what was observed; the global temperatures (if you can even group them) have been more or less constant while CO₂ was rising all the time (I am suspicious about that curve; looks far too neat to be a natural scientific factor).

 

If you make a financial model of the stock market (and this is even talking "global stock markets"; cf. "global climate") and your predictions are completely off, you would be out of business very fast; nobody would take your models seriously.

 

In the IPCC's scam that is not the case because it is a political organization. Politicians do not care about truth; they are professional liars,

 

So, in short, anyone can see that the IPCC's projections cannot be taken seriously. That's not a "misunderstanding" as you call it. It directly follows from the bad models themselves.

 

 

Also it's way easier to just claim corruption and tinkering with data, when the accused isn't there to defend himself, but that doesn't really make a good case either imo.

 

 

Who do you call the "accused"? What is there to "defend"? I am defending sound science and that's the whole problem here; those IPCC "models" are not sound science (even when the climatologists working in the back office are or may be sound scientists). It is political propaganda. A climatologist would never ever claim that "sea level will have risen by 7 meters by 2100". A typical way of publishing a projection would be "Our research shows that there's an x% probability that A will happen, but only based on factors P, Q and R. AT the same time there's a y% that scenarios W, V or Z will happen" Earth sciences are not like law, where things may be black and white. It is intrinsically impossible to claim things with certainty and any climatologist doing that makes a fool out of himself. It is also not the climatologists who are the culprit (that's how the propagandists frame it; "you are anti-science"), because their wording is much more sensical.

 

It's the politicians distorting the research, cherry-picking and even corrupting. No surprise quite some climatologists who are moral people have left that scamdalous IPCC a long time ago.

 

I think if you really wanna get down to understanding the debate better,

 

 

Which "debate"? I understand the scam pretty well and can point out flaws. If you think I am mistaken in that, please try to give arguments for that. This statement of you is empty.

 

 

you need to get an interview going, where you can bring all the objections forth and have an actual dialogue with a climate scientist in the field, else you're really just talking from a point of ignorance to people who are on average about as ignorant about the topic as you are and that wouldn't help anyone understand things better.

 

 

You're using words like "ignorance"? I am not ignorant at all, having worked in Earth science modeling and research (which is even harder than climatology because of the huge time spans we have to deal with) for some 15 years. How can you call me "ignorant"? Have you worked in similar sciences yourself?

 

Where are your arguments?

[TheRobin]

I don't know of any scientists Stef ever talked to about climate. Only either bloggers or writers (which is fine, but not science). Did I miss one?

Also I have trouble understanding what you mean when you say the models failed since the Temperature is still within the predicted range (even up until now with the so called pause). Can you give me a link where the later models fail then?

Also you seem to conflate the IPPC political reports with the science papers here. Yes, I agree the IPCC is a political and definitely corrupted institution, so no need to bring that up.

You can see my arguments throughout the threads, I guess. Or what in particular are you referring to? 

[shirgall]

I don't know of any scientists Stef ever talked to about climate. Only either bloggers or writers (which is fine, but not science). Did I miss one?

 

Also I have trouble understanding what you mean when you say the models failed since the Temperature is still within the predicted range (even up until now with the so called pause). Can you give me a link where the later models fail then?

 

Also you seem to conflate the IPPC political reports with the science papers here. Yes, I agree the IPCC is a political and definitely corrupted institution, so no need to bring that up.

 

You can see my arguments throughout the threads, I guess. Or what in particular are you referring to? 

 

This is the first one that comes to mind: 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I don't know of any scientists Stef ever talked to about climate. Only either bloggers or writers (which is fine, but not science). Did I miss one?

 

Also I have trouble understanding what you mean when you say the models failed since the Temperature is still within the predicted range (even up until now with the so called pause). Can you give me a link where the later models fail then?

 

Also you seem to conflate the IPPC political reports with the science papers here. Yes, I agree the IPCC is a political and definitely corrupted institution, so no need to bring that up.

 

You can see my arguments throughout the threads, I guess. Or what in particular are you referring to? 

 

I wonder why it would make sense to bring one of these scientists on though? I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, but I'm having trouble understanding the utility of that for this audience. It does not matter much really if the science is true that you are referring to, since we don't need public opinion to correlate with science for science to function correctly in the market place. If there is a problem the solutions will be accounted for, just hopefully not by governments. And if FDR can make an impact on this social issue at all (remember, even if the science is true at some level, the social issue is completely distorted), it is to inform everyone who is willing to listen that the government is being severely corrupt and endangering human lives. And that governments are the biggest polluters. And it's also to dispel the gigantic myths propagated by fear-mongering state sponsored academics who paint pictures of dire plight. If the science is true people will adapt it and the world will move on. But I think obviously FDR is mainly concerned about the issues we can effect change on, like the public's opinion of the government.

 

Let me know if you disagree with that or not

 

P.S. Forgot I wanted to also ask you, what do you make of C02 being called pollution by Richard Muller? I know it was not in the largest context ever, but as an outsider with a fair understanding of economics, to me this seems like a severe blind spot for a possibly neurotic jewish scientist who wants the fame and glory of the public sector hu-rah when a skeptic claims he is not a believer. Obviously it is not the worst position to be in the public sector's eye this way, right? I'm having a hard time understanding how something can be called a pollutant to a human environment without a consideration of its larger context, and the possible alternatives. Or am I missing something as an outsider?

[rosencrantz]

I wonder why it would make sense to bring one of these scientists on though?

 

To critique a position it is a good idea to pass the ideological Turing Test (in this case the scientific Turing test). That is, can you summarize a position that you disagree with in such a way that your written summary could be mistaken for an argument of the opposing side? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test

 

People critisize what they can understand (the government interferes with science, there are lobbyists for global warming) while not thoroughly understanding the tenets of the scientific theory. 

 

If you want to see if AGW is true or not you first have to understand the theory. Then you can look if it is backed up by evidence. Both these steps include a scientific literacy that few have. 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong but I'll give my understanding of AGW just to see how far off I might be.

 

AGW is basically the conclusion that temperatures have been rising over the last 50 to 100 years and correlate to the increase in C02 being released into the atmosphere. There is a greenhouse effect when C02 is released, and this causes heat to become trapped in our atmosphere, which increases the global temperature (permanently?). The effects of this are more acidic oceans, rising sea levels, worse storms, and perhaps droughts. 

 

If I'm really mis-characterizing things I would appreciate any BS I am spouting to be called out.

 

I guess my root concern about bringing a climate scientist on is that I imagine these guys to either be state funded either in part or whole, who are not trained economists and so might not be able to conduct a cost benefit calculation properly, and who think state solutions are the prompt solution. Maybe I'm completely mis-characterizing the field, I really don't know. My familiarity to be fair is not from actual climate scientists for the most part, but then I see one presented here, Richard Muller, and he sounds quite hysterical to me saying that C02 will be looked on as the biggest pollutant in history. Once again, maybe I'm missing something and I want to be clear I'm not at all qualified or well-read on the science. But that is my concern, and I figure, if AGW is real and the threat can be calculated, well it will be taken care of by the market anyway so there isn't much risk to be skeptical about it if it is invalid and being used as an excuse for gov't intervention and to create social hysteria.

 

Anyway I'm going to review the thread and the videos and more of Robin's posts since I don't want to be caught with my pants down, but I did want to defend FDR not having a climate scientist on (unless Shirgall's post fits that) if climate science is primarily publicly funded and is very pro-government with their proposed "solutions."

[RCali]

The effects of this are more acidic oceans, rising sea levels, worse storms, and perhaps droughts. 

 

 

Don't forget about the global warming->ocean currents stopping->ice age

[TheRobin]

I just wanted to write real quick to apologize for not answering as of yet. The last few days have been quite terrible for me in terms of not getting enough sleep (or sometimes not any sleep at all) so I'm not quite in the right condition to respond.

But thanks shirgall and Matthew for the responses, I'll get to those soon (hopefully)

[AccuTron]

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong but I'll give my understanding of AGW just to see how far off I might be.

 

AGW is basically the conclusion that temperatures have been rising over the last 50 to 100 years and correlate to the increase in C02 being released into the atmosphere. There is a greenhouse effect when C02 is released, and this causes heat to become trapped in our atmosphere, which increases the global temperature (permanently?). The effects of this are more acidic oceans, rising sea levels, worse storms, and perhaps droughts. 

 

If I'm really mis-characterizing things I would appreciate any BS I am spouting to be called out.

 

I guess my root concern about bringing a climate scientist on is ....

 

 

Can't say it enough:  TWO HOURS MINIMUM on my links about this stuff.   climate fraud updates - General Messages - Freedomain Radio Message Board  Otherwise, you'll always be wandering around in partial dark, and there are PLENTY of liars out there.  And a huge amount of incompetent fools -- don't underestimate this effect.  The entire AGW gig is based upon illegal math, illegal physics, outright data fraud, and a mind-boggling ignorance of basic methods.  Al Gore is making out like a bandit, search "carbon billionaire".  

 

So a VERY BIG point is your use of the word "conclusion."  This is the lie.  There was NEVER a conclusion, it was all made up, more than one idiot or outright criminal involved, then it gathered a slavish multitude of so-called scientists who get paid to be ignorant and lie to others.  

 

That multitude is huge -- you must understand that.  Are you aware of how many people went into psychology to "save the world" back in the seventies?  Mostly, complete idiots who didn't know what else to do (I sympathize), but they paid tuition money, or somebody did, so they got degrees and spread nonsense.  Same thing today with climate -- people sign up for ego, don't give a crap about truth.  Usually don't even have a clue about basic honest methodology.  I know one, he's a complete dolt.

 

Thus, a "climate scientist" has a very large probability of being a fool, liar, and utterly a brick wall to talk to.  Thus, spreading the lie, not killing it.  In my materials, you'll see a letter to the editor from a REAL climate scientist, Dr. Thomas N. Chase, Ph.D., works with CIRES, who called this crap "scandal" and "not science."  Now, if you could get him, or someone truly vetted, we might have something.  There's also an MIT physicist named Lindzen, read him here: Imgur:  Get one of those guys, and we'll have something.

 

Also, search climate history in general, and the temp has been warming since about 1850, part of natural variation.  It was a temp low point, warmer before that, in fact warmer than now, a number of times.  Check my materials, I've got a huge amount of info in there.

 

To review:

not a conclusion; a fabrication

CO2 rises every interglacial period, has been rising for 18,000 years.

plenty of real science showing the claims are bogus, in fact the IPCC has been slightly backing off

 

Publications like National Geographic and Science News have had their editors replaced by flunkies who print lies...look in my materials for this too.  Major newspapers, too, are in total hock.  Not all, such as the WSJ who knows this is bogus.  But the ones that follow the ownership trail up to Democratic Party power only lie..."anti-science" is used when someone tells the truth.  

 

Obama calls it "flat earth society."  On that last one, you really need to understand the scope of the power and money on this.  It's not just some jerks.  This is a huge coordinated deception.  In my links, you'll see the Union Of Concerned Scientists website, some years back, expressing coherent alarm at science being misused for politics.  A few years later, the site is hijacked by the frauds.  It's like a tabloid.  It's page after page of claiming to be persecuted...all about AGW...and the supposed problem is that they are being asked to show their data and methods!  You will see this over and over.  

 

Please understand, this is not a fluke of flakes.  This is a gigantic program of fraud.  Gore's getting a billion dollars from this, and he's just one guy.  Obama is making pacts with China over AGW...wtf is that about??  

 

Someone here, maybe dsayers, said he thought AGW was not that big a deal.  No, no, no...it is the BIGGEST deal.  It is the umbrella that darkens free speech itself.  Editors and scientists who don't do the fraud are fired.  These are criminals, who have utterly taken over the State, at all levels.  One must declare allegiance to fraud, or suffer consequences.  

 

I consider this to be as widespread and deadly as 20th Century fascism.  No guns, you say?  Ah, but laws are guns, and this thing is making laws, and line items on our electric bills, like crazy.  Understand that:  if you live in an area like I do, with a power bill item "Climate Action Plan", then you are required at gun point to pay Al Gore et. al. for fraud.  It doesn't get bigger than this.

 

Start reading those links.

[rosencrantz]

There is a greenhouse effect when C02 is released, and this causes heat to become trapped in our atmosphere, which increases the global temperature (permanently?). The effects of this are more acidic oceans, rising sea levels, worse storms, and perhaps droughts. 

 

 

The basic idea is pretty simple. Once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere there will be a new stable state that includes a change of the global climate. Though this may be good for some regions it will be dire for other regions. So far there are feedback mechanisms that balance the effect of CO2 out. But when those mechanisms don't work any more you will see drastic changes pretty fast. As with most coupled systems, there is no superposition possible. That means an increase of CO2 does not lead to an a proportionate increase of temperature because of the coupled system and because of said mechanism. This means once you see a drastic change it is very hard to undo.

[A4E]

-Contributing extra Co2 to the atmosphere is a sin.

-Sinners are rebellious and sexy.

-People want to be rebellious and sexy.

-People will gladly pay to be rebellious and sexy.

 

Its kinda like a gym membership for people who frequently drive a car and don't want to work out.

 

I think this religion is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I just wanted to write real quick to apologize for not answering as of yet. The last few days have been quite terrible for me in terms of not getting enough sleep (or sometimes not any sleep at all) so I'm not quite in the right condition to respond.

 

But thanks shirgall and Matthew for the responses, I'll get to those soon (hopefully)

I'm sorry to hear about that, Robin. There is not much worse than wanting desperately to sleep but being unable to. Hopefully you are able to get sleep soon. Take your time responding to me if you need to. I have been reviewing the posts in this thread, yours and Rosencrantz in particular, and I am beginning I think to understand how maybe others in this thread, and FDR in general, have not put an emphasis on the validity of the trend. 

 

I also used to reside skepticism in that correlation is not causation, and I was quick to do that because I thought since climate is so complex, and since the data seems to be manipulated, that this was a fair criticism. But your point is well taken that it is not an argument, and that it is also not falsifiable, and I want to be sensitive to the data if it is credible, since it is not up to me to deny valid data! So that is why I'll give a look to Muller when I have the time, but when you are feeling better I am interested what you think of his comment about C02 being a pollutant.

 

The basic idea is pretty simple. Once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere there will be a new stable state that includes a change of the global climate. Though this may be good for some regions it will be dire for other regions. So far there are feedback mechanisms that balance the effect of CO2 out. But when those mechanisms don't work any more you will see drastic changes pretty fast. As with most coupled systems, there is no superposition possible. That means an increase of CO2 does not lead to an a proportionate increase of temperature because of the coupled system and because of said mechanism. This means once you see a drastic change it is very hard to undo.

 

Thanks Rosen, that makes things somewhat more clear to me. I am a bit confused why you called it simple. It does not appear simple to me, but to be honest the physical sciences I have never studied so it could be my "newness" to the topic that makes it difficult to understand. I somewhat follow your point, and it seems like I'd have to invest way more time to get a grip, but if I can make this idea more empirical, are there any instances in the past where a mechanism "stopped working" in the climate? What did that look like and what were the hypothesized causes?

 

I think we all agree that if climate were to impose a serious threat to man's existence, well it would seem besides an ice age, we could tolerate and relocate to the climates which became more habitable. Man only exists on a tiny portion of this earth, and it would seem no matter our effect on the environment (and our C02 output does seem small from an outside point of view, but I get what you said about how it could have disproportionate effects), we will have to endure some serious climate change if we're to continue existing, since there have been large climate changes throughout history. From an outsider POV, however, it seems the worse possible scenario would be for the climate to get colder, and oddly enough if C02 were to counteract that, it would be necessary to release C02 just to keep the climate habitable. I think something like this was mentioned in Shirgall's video.

 

But when I think about the drastic changes we might have to make in the future if the climate were to radically shift, god, we definitely could not endure the inefficiency of government at that time. It will put a strain on our resources, and any gov't intervention will cost significant lives, as it always does. 

 

Thanks for all the replies.

[rosencrantz]

but if I can make this idea more empirical, are there any instances in the past where a mechanism "stopped working" in the climate? What did that look like and what were the hypothesized causes?

 

There were a series of events called Rapid Climate Change. A notable one was called Dryas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

 

Keep in mind that the basic mechanism of climate / weather was only discovered very recently (in the 60s) and that I am no expert. I ran acros this during thermodynamics and it caused me to look at it deeper on an amateurish level. 

[Torero]

If you want to see if AGW is true or not you first have to understand the theory.

 

Are you calling "Antropogenic Global Warming" a "theory"?

 

 

 

Then you can look if it is backed up by evidence.

 

A scientific theory (which AGW is not; it's a politicized hypothesis, a scam) should have been "backed up by evidence" long before it even made it to the theory stage.

 

Moreover, it needs to be predictive; the essential characteristic of a decent scientific theory.

 

Also there, it fails.

 

 

 

Both these steps include a scientific literacy that few have.

 

How many is "few"? Who do you call upon to be "scientifically literate"?

 

It feels like you're somehow 'defending' this scamdalous politics, if not, please elaborate on your position.

[rosencrantz]

Are you calling "Antropogenic Global Warming" a "theory"?

 

It's a coherent physical theory and makes testable predictions. So yeah. 

 

 

A scientific theory (which AGW is not; it's a politicized hypothesis, a scam) should have been "backed up by evidence" long before it even made it to the theory stage.

 

 

 

AGW goes back to the 19th century. Look up Svante Arrhenius.

 

 

How many is "few"? Who do you call upon to be "scientifically literate"?

 

 

 

A basic understanding in physics and chemistry. Somebody who does not understand what a Lagrange point is, is immediately disqualified. 

 

 

It feels like you're somehow 'defending' this scamdalous politics, if not, please elaborate on your position.

 

 

I don't defend anything. If data and theories point in one direction I tend to follow it unless there is a better theory available.

[TheRobin]

Matthew, so I finally found some time. Sorry it took me so long. I was also trying to give a more thorough response to shirgall (with links and all), but I think I'll pass on that for the moment, else I'm never able to get an reply in time it seems. 

So, why have a climate scientists (and maybe a corrupt one even) on the show? The main reason for that would be so that Stef and the viewers actually get the claims as they are made for once. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding or sometimes misrepresentation (though not by Stef) of what the AGW claims actually are. (No doubt, because the media sure isn't doing a good job in being very neutral and objective on the topic either).

Like, the "warming trend", whereas trend is defined as at least a 30 year period in the climate sciences, so  when they say there hasn't been a change in trend, and call it a "pause" then that's true if we use that definition, but as a layman one would quickly point out that there has been basically no warming in the last 17 years and usually say the claim that there's still a warming trend is wrong. But that just results from a misunderstanding of what the claim actually is because it's not obvious that this is how it's defined (and why would it be?)

Or the claim of Dr. Patrick Moore in the video shirgall linked about oceans "becoming acid". It only took me one google search to a site explaining the claims and they are very clear that this is NOT what is happening (or even could happen), but merely that the oceans becoming more acidic (lowering of the pH value). Also they explain why salt doesn't help in that particular case (which is the argument Dr. Moore uses).

My general point is: Just like any other advanced science, there's lots of details that can lead to special cases for very specific situations, so it's easy for people who are experts in other fields to not know about those details and then as a result misrepresent the claim or not know about the details of why the claim is made (or what about) in the first place. 
And I see that happening quite often in climate debates that very general arguments are used to rebut the AGW claims that totally miss the claims made.

As for corruption, well, I think at this point it would also be fair to point out that there's just as much corruption on the skeptics side. I know it's become cliché the factually speaking there IS a lot of money being poured by oil and similar into think tanks, who then come up with arguments about why AGW isn't real or not that big of a deal. That of course doesn't mean that the claims are false, but the same is true for the statist science. At this point there's bad incentives on both sides, and I think if one points out the corruption in one he also has to point out the corruption on the other, else it's kinda biased.


And just to be clear, I very much appreciate people like Dr. Moore and Alex Epstein coming on the show and pointing out the insanity of the narrative of the alarmists. I'm by no means supporting CO2 being called a pollutant (unless one want to stretch the term in almost unimaginable ways) or the demonizing of anything that creates visible smoke when burned or the state interfering by forcing people to produce less CO2 (which even aside from all moral considerations is imo just a pipe dream if one really thins that would work globally)

Hope that helps. I'm sure I didn't address all points you made, so if I missed something important, let me know and I'm happy to get to that as well.
Also thanks for keeping the thread alive and interesting. I genuinly almost gave up bothering after Accu's and Torero's responses. Like, I've been doing 15 minutes of research just for the first 5 minutes of the interview with Dr. Moore trying to understand the claims, getting a better understanding and then all it seemingly takes is some large all encompassing claims of corruption, lies and comparing it to religion the shout those down, that really discouraged me from posting at first, so thanks for staying curious and on topic

[AccuTron]

-Contributing extra Co2 to the atmosphere is a sin.

-Sinners are rebellious and sexy.

-People want to be rebellious and sexy.

-People will gladly pay to be rebellious and sexy.

 

Its kinda like a gym membership for people who frequently drive a car and don't want to work out.

 

I think this religion is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

I think you're on to something.  Alas, this means support for the AGW fraud, as now it has support from giant Money/Power trail, and giant Ego.  The people you mention will add Thrill.  Ego and Thrill are notorious for averting Honesty.

The basic idea is pretty simple. Once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere there will be a new stable state that includes a change of the global climate. Though this may be good for some regions it will be dire for other regions. So far there are feedback mechanisms that balance the effect of CO2 out. But when those mechanisms don't work any more you will see drastic changes pretty fast. As with most coupled systems, there is no superposition possible. That means an increase of CO2 does not lead to an a proportionate increase of temperature because of the coupled system and because of said mechanism. This means once you see a drastic change it is very hard to undo.

You started your premise with The Big Lie.  "You will see" implies belief in the reality of something...Dear Lord how many times do I have to say this?...TOTALLY made up.  Gather a crowd around the word TOTALLY.  It's precisely, precisely, as if someone, say Al Gore, spread the story of the Great Zombie Invasion, and got pluhhhnnnnty of money to fight Zombies, and one party of Zombie Fighters gets more votes.  And you say "You'll see!  When the Zombies get here, you'll find out!!"  

 

Again...can you fray corners on an oft-handled jpg?...look at this graph.  This is a killer graph for the multitude of info. Imgur:

 

What do we see for hundreds of thousands of years?  YES, the planet does it's own variations!  We're not gods!  And we are mostly an ICE AGE PLANET.   Further, we see that we don't get many of these warm periods, noooooo, we're only in the 5th one EVER.  And our present running time on this warm spell already exceeded the expiration date on one of those previous ones, and we're closely nudging up to game end on two others.  So quit bitchin' about any warming we get.

 

We pollute the atmosphere.  We knock down some molecules here and there.  But we are incapable of changing the climate, not until we reach science fiction abilities.  That is another appeal to this successful lie--EGO.  (A4E mentions people rebelling against carbon laws finding the thrill in it.  This thing is stuffed with offerings for ego junkies.)  "Oh my God, we are soooo powerful, planetary!  (Pump, pump.)  And yet we are so evil too!  (Angst, angst, Original Sin echoes.)  We'll write laws, and tell others, those lower than us which is everyone not me, what to do!  (Practically orgasmic at this point.)"

 

And back to that graph, CO2 clearly elevates (lockstep with other gasses) EVERY warm spell, and it's been increasing for about 18,000 years.  So go into your prayer kitchen, and say 100 times "CO2 has been rising for eighteen thousand years, so just maybe it ain't us."

[rosencrantz]

"You will see" implies belief in the reality of something...

 

That's how bifurcations work. In non-linear coupled systems small changes can lead to drastic fast changes. 

[AccuTron]

Got that.  Yet this carbon thing is made up.  Do you want to list ALL the ingredients of the atmosphere, and worry about each one of them going bonkers?  They don't.  The Zombies could lead to a complete bifurcation of society, yet I don't worry about that, 'cause there ain't any.  

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Thanks for the thorough reply, Robin

 

So, why have a climate scientists (and maybe a corrupt one even) on the show? The main reason for that would be so that Stef and the viewers actually get the claims as they are made for once. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding or sometimes misrepresentation (though not by Stef) of what the AGW claims actually are. (No doubt, because the media sure isn't doing a good job in being very neutral and objective on the topic either).

 

 

You say "claims as they are made." Here is why that is  troubling phrasing for me..

 

You are pointing to a specific climate scientist in this thread and his claims (which I don't doubt could be true). Now apart from his research presented in the videos, we also now know that he has called carbon a pollutant. You even agree that is impossible to call C02 a pollutant unless you want to stretch the term.

 

So how can the research in his videos possibly be considered non biased now? Isn't it a valid claim to say that his research is invalid because he has expressed bias? I don't mean to spell this out if you get my point, but it would seem to me pretty fundamental that proven bias invalidates statistical research, since human manipulation would almost certainly muddy the process in some way.

 

But back to your phase "claims as they are made"..

 

I assume you mean the scientists you specifically refer to? How do these people compare to the media and government in their outreach? The truth is, the media vastly communicates the most about climate science to the average person. The internet provides the opportunity to learn climate science in more detail, but the media is making hysterical claims everyday, and I don't see a movement on the part of climate scientist to stop it (it's a bit funny to say I know). But there are also government professors who work directly for the state to lie about climate change (btw about oceans turning acidic - Bill Mckibben said that in a debate).

 

So when FDR chooses to interview skeptics, who I will take for granted have said some things about the opposition which were incorrect, it is to provide a counter source to the media. The climate scientists aren't doing it, and so Stefan has to. Now when you are not a professional climate scientist, but the field of climate science is just so hopelessly captured by the government and social expectations, and you have to then fill in their place to correct the grievous lies of the media; do you really think you have any admiration left for them to want them on your show?

 

But in a completely different direction, if you know someone who is as vocal or at least as un-compromised as Stefan against government and media misinformation about climate science, who is climate scientist and either believes in some iteration of AGW or not (doesn't matter but the truth is preferable), then I think that would make for a really awesome show. Totally on board with that one!

 

Do you really know of anyone, though?

 

 

 

As for corruption, well, I think at this point it would also be fair to point out that there's just as much corruption on the skeptics side. I know it's become cliché the factually speaking there IS a lot of money being poured by oil and similar into think tanks, who then come up with arguments about why AGW isn't real or not that big of a deal. That of course doesn't mean that the claims are false, but the same is true for the statist science. At this point there's bad incentives on both sides, and I think if one points out the corruption in one he also has to point out the corruption on the other, else it's kinda biased.

 

Oh man, you aren't comparing privately funded science to government science.. are you?

 

I don't think that is a good comparison at all, since science which is funded "publicly" obviously involve's a gun to someone's head.

 

I know you get that, but it's important to point out.

 

I know Big Oil is state regulated, but I don't think it can be compared to climate science. Oil is actually demanded, so there is some considerable market interaction there. But with state roads and all, there is undeniably a capacity for corruption.

 

 

 

Also thanks for keeping the thread alive and interesting. I genuinly almost gave up bothering after Accu's and Torero's responses. Like, I've been doing 15 minutes of research just for the first 5 minutes of the interview with Dr. Moore trying to understand the claims, getting a better understanding and then all it seemingly takes is some large all encompassing claims of corruption, lies and comparing it to religion the shout those down, that really discouraged me from posting at first, so thanks for staying curious and on topic 

 

I wanted to try a different approach since I am not as familiar with the extent of the corruption as others may be. I figured and still maintain that I don't necessarily doubt some scientists have captured a valid trend in temperature linked with C02. I have trouble understanding the theory behind the predictions capability. Rosencrantz seems to state that there is the possibility of like a "swing" in temperature that is not proportional to the release of C02 into the atmosphere. That does seem odd to me, but a lot of science was odd to me before I understood it.

 

But more importantly, I think it is really crucial to try and understand what FDR does. As Stefan has stated before he is not the authority on climate science, and he doesn't claim to be; his purpose is to present a counter-narrative to the media. There are propaganda videos out every day. I literally saw one just before in the democratic debate and it was a bit heart breaking for me since I rarely watch TV I wasn't prepared for it. It basically was shaming anyone who doubts what the government and media have to say about climate change. 

 

I'm not saying you're not, but I think we need to sympathize with the people who the media is attacking and understand a lot of them are just fighting back from being called "carbon addicts" who are destroying the planet. So what if they say ridiculous things sometimes? They're being barraged with insults and assaults in the name of climate media every day.

 

If climate science isn't going to stick up for these people, then FDR must. If some incorrect statements are made along the way obviously its never preferable, but if young people do not hear Stefan or others speaking out against climate change as presented in the major outlets of society, they will conform to the social pressure.

 

If I didn't reply to something it's probably because I agree with it. I hope I made some sense and I appreciate the fun conversation

[TheRobin]

It's unfortunately getting to the point where it's hard to respond cause of the length, so I'm just gonna shorten it and you can tell me if I left out important things you want me to respond to.

First, i think it's rather unwarranted to discard ALL of a persons research because they use the term pollutant for CO2. Yes it's a stretch, but I think so is Stef calling fiat currency a pollutant. But if I said used that as an excuse to not watch any of his videos on climate science, I think it'd be obvious I'm just desperately trying to find an excuse to not look at the claims.

And bias in general, everyone's got them. That's why we have double blind studies and all that even in fields that are supposedly purely physical (like medicine).

As for private vs government funded. Yeah I think if the question is, how financial incentives can bias researchers then it doesn't matter where the money comes from. If you've heard the talk Stef had with a doctor about how corrupt that field of research is then it should be obvious that private science is by no means any better off than public one at this point.
Safe for creating actual tools and gadgets that work (like smartphones and such, where the science directly influences the product)

And as you pointed out, big corporations can hardly be called a private sector these days, when a lot of their profit comes from lobbying and regulatory capture.

And I agree with that it's good to push back against the narrative and the insanity of alarmists, as well as point out the problems of state regulation in that field. Which is why I think that all the videos spent on trying to debunk a field of science completely miss the point (and are generally based on a lack of understanding more than anything else) and are just a waste of time for the most part.

Edit: unfortunately I had to run off while typing the post, so I wanted to add something real quick: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
this site is really a good one for anyone interested in the scientific claims and papers without there being any political discussion. I'm sure you'll find that most of the points raised are answered there with citations of actual papers (as opposed to news articles and interviews)

Also had time to google McKibben, I couldn't find an interview where he said the oceans turn acidic (only "more acidic", which is what I said as well and what the claim is). But I think that might just illustrate my reasoning for having someone on who knows more than the general layperson, cause it's these kinds of misinterpretations about details that then can lead people to assume lies where it's really just a misunderstanding.
 

[AccuTron]

 

Do you really know of anyone, though?

 

post #48, right here.   Drs. Chase CIRES, and Lindzen MIT

"I don't think that is a good comparison at all, since science which is funded "publicly" obviously does not involve a gun to someone's head....

 

I know Big Oil is state regulated, but I don't think it can be compared to climate science. Oil is actually demanded, so there is some considerable market interaction there. But with state roads and all, there is undeniably a capacity for corruption."

 

------------------

 

Whoa.  Public science doesn't involve a gun????  Where's the tax money come from?  And the extortion -- gotta do the legwork to know this -- against editors and scientists who don't print lies, sounds awfully like pointed invisible guns.

 

Big Oil is the straw man of the climate frauds.  People fall for it.  Any Big Oil statements are going to be true, since the fraud is total.  Falsified data is falsified data, doesn't matter who points it out.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

That was a typo AccuTron, but thanks for pointing it out so I could correct it.

 

I don't know if you all saw this video.

 

[TheRobin]

Btw I forgot to ask, but I'm curious: What are everyone's criteria for disproof? Like what would need to happen to change your stance on the topic? For me it's pretty simple: If the temperature stays constant over the next 5-10 years then the models are shown to be wrong (outside there being strong volcanic activity ofc) and that would lead me to accept that the claim is most likely (like, 99.9%) false. 

So what is anyone else's criteria?

[Torero]

Btw I forgot to ask, but I'm curious: What are everyone's criteria for disproof? Like what would need to happen to change your stance on the topic? For me it's pretty simple: If the temperature stays constant over the next 5-10 years then the models are shown to be wrong (outside there being strong volcanic activity ofc) and that would lead me to accept that the claim is most likely (like, 99.9%) false. 

 

So what is anyone else's criteria?

 

A fair question to ask, if "climate change" were a real scientific theory.

 

The Climate Change idea, reframed from AGW (= Antropogenic Global Warming) is far from that. What rosencrantz said earlier isn't true; Arrhenius did not research AGW, yet the greenhouse effect. Even if a greenhouse effect could be applied globally (which I suspect not to be the case; extrapolating closed system analysis on a global scale with an open boundary to the top -atmosphere-space- is not possible), then still the human factor is not part of that.

 

That's my whole problem with this scam; the premise is that humans are "responsible", the question "only" is; 'how much'?

 

That is completely anti-natural scientific. The natural causes of CO₂ production are far more important than us, humans. Natural outgassings of the ocean floor (oceans are covering about 70% of the whole Earth's surface), e.g. black smokers, far outweigh any effect we humans could possible have on the production of CO₂.

 

I've linked to them many times, but again because they are so important to understand which scales we are talking about, there have been 2 drastic (yet short-lived; showing how nature itself copes with changes; re-equilibration) climate changes in the past 420 years. Both were caused by natural factors; volcanic eruptions. We humans were (and will not be) able to be stronger than those:

 

1 - The eruption of Huaynaputina, a volcano in Peru (!) in 1600 and the resulting Russian famine of the following years

2 - The eruption of Tambora, a volcano in Indonesia in 1815 and the resulting Year without Summer (an interesting book collecting the evidence for this drastic climate change I have and is really recommended to understand the scale of those events)

 

 

1 - where 1601 was the coldest year in six centuries

 

 

 

2 - ...caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C

 

 

 

If the Climate Change "theory" (it's a hypothesis, not more) were a fair and balanced analysis taking into account the natural factors and not focusing uniquely on human influence, your question would be a fair one to ask and answer. As that is not the case and the natural effects are downplayed to even not taken into account, that question is impossible to answer as the premise is intrinsically wrong.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Robin,

 

The IPCC papers are cited on that site you gave me. You said they are definitely corrupt and politicized. So why should I trust a source of information which shares information which cites corrupt and politicized organizations without mentioning their corruption and politicization?

 

Here is where IPCC is cited http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/basics

 

And actually it is linked to from the site you gave me here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/to offer the basics about global warming.

 

There doesn't seem to be much caution here among these climate scientists to me. I am very skeptical in response to it.

 

Edited to be less goating