42 thoughts on “The Climate Debate Is Over”

      1. I suppose you could always say anyone who disputes your position is an academic fraud.

          2. Explaining your case to the judge is what one does in a lawsuit.

            If you had slightly more intelligence than a lobotomized fern, you would know that.

            But you don’t. Because you are a moron. Who loves to advertise that fact in my comments section, every day.

    2. What a surprise, confusing science with politics.

      What you lost was the chance to disrupt and disable our economy and hobble our future for the next decade. (Although you’ll still try through the EPA.)

  3. Rand, did you get my message to your phone earlier today? Mann was on NPR today just before 3pm ET and boy did he drop a whopper.

    Said that if we permitted Keystone the Earth would become uninhabitable, if it was stopped we still had “options.”

    2. Well, if the Keystone Pipeline goes in, then one day you’ll be driving past a store..

      [inserts a long chain of highly improbable events taken from a Direct TV commercial involving a giraffe, a truckload of ceiling fans, a pizza delivery to CERN, and a passing alien spaceship]

      .. and then bam, multicellular life on Earth goes extinct.

      1. Those commercials are one of my favorite guilty pleasures.
        I recommend taking a close look at the new climate report. For anyone who’s been paying attention, it’s full of “curious” presentation and omissions. Simple example: note the scary graphs showing arctic ice minima trends. Where are the charts for Antarctica? Not there. Just a few words about how ice there is increasing, and few words speculating about why.
        Second example: Hurricane energy dissipation trends. Two chart, side by side, showing the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific trends for the last decade or two. There’s several problems here, but note the 2:1 difference in vertical scale, which has the effect of halving the visual impression of the down-trend in the Pacific.
        I want to see data presented fully and honestly. This ain’t it.

        1. If you want to argue antarctic ice is growing, you have to have a theory for that.

          2. I have a theory for why the neighbor’s Wiener dog was barking and yodeling outside my bedroom window at 5:45 AM this morning. Separation anxiety. It didn’t want to be left alone and not heard. That and a complete lack of empathy on the part of the neighbor for anyone else living on the block The neighbor could take the dog out for a walk as do most dog owners around here but instead lets it out on a tether to sit in the back yard, feel abandoned, and yelp in my direction, and then winches it back in through the patio door without even setting foot in the yard.

          3. A theory is used to make predictions.

            Your theory failed because Antarctic ice is growing.

            Your a science fraud.

          4. A theory is used to make predictions.

            Your theory failed because Antarctic ice is growing.

            You’re a science fraud.

          5. Rand, it is difficult (approaching impossible) to separate theories from facts. For example, suppose a group of people without modern astronomical knowledge develops “the scientific method” as it is explained in textbooks. They will insist that it is an empirical fact that the sun rises and sets. They can measure the sun’s rise and fall with increasing precision, and they’ll work on theories (hopefully falsifiable) to explain their observations. You and I, of course, have a different theory about what’s going on, and that theory influences what we view as “the facts”. But as you’re quick to insist, the science is never settled.

          6. Rand, it is difficult (approaching impossible) to separate theories from facts.

            It is no harder now than it has ever been (i.e., not hard at all).

            That the sun seems to rise in the east and set in the west (by definition, in fact) on a daily basis is a fact. There are numerous theories to explain that phenomenon.

          7. “For example, suppose a group of people without modern astronomical knowledge develops “the scientific method” as it is explained in textbooks.”

            So a group of people comes along and without knowing anything begins to search for why the sun rises and sets. Their findings are colored by their ideology but overtime we hope they will find the truth. But before they get there, they come up with all sorts of theories. One theory is that dancing pleases the sun and will prevent drought.

            When drought comes, much soul searching takes place. Have they not danced enough? Were the dances not entertaining? Didn’t the dances take great skill to perform? So they start looking for who displeased the sun. Perhaps it was the people who didn’t dance or did not dance with enough enthusiasm. It must be the fault of the people who dared question whether or not dancing had any effect on the sun.

            So the sun worshipers go house to house getting in people’s faces and yelling. They use the tools of government to strip people of their businesses and personal possessions. They castigate the offenders and throw them out of society. Things get worse and worse as the zealots look for what is displeasing the sun. But the sun keeps doing what it has always done since the dawn of time unaware that the sundancers even exist, which would surely make the sundancers break down and weep for they hold themselves with such importance.

          8. One “day”, the sun disappeared. As the Earth cooled, glowing words appeared in the dark sky: “Please stand by”. The so-called facts were not facts after all. Time for new theories.

          9. Fact: The sun rose yesterday.

            Theory: The sun will rise tomorrow.

            I don’t know why this is difficult…

          11. There is an opportunity for admittedly amateur-level but completely sincere philosophy of science that could be done in this discussion, regarding difficulty in teasing out theory from observation, but I don’t think anyone except for me is actually interested. And that’s ok. If someone isn’t interested in doing philosophy, it will definitely look like arguing for the sake of arguing, and it will be annoying, which is not my goal.

          12. If you want to argue antarctic ice is growing, you have to have a theory for that.

            How about the southern hemisphere ozone hole? Ozone is a greenhouse gas and it is present at very high altitudes. This has the ideological advantage (people, I’m selling this for dn_guy) of actually demonstrating that CFCs were causing the the ozone hole. If the ozone hole was an ongoing thing that people just happened to observe back in the 80s and panic over, then in the scenario there would be more ice there than currently observed.

        2. In my original comment, I was completely unconcerned about theory. I only addressed the presentation and omission of fact in the report. The sections of the report I was commenting on are primarily focused on fact presentation, not theoretical explanation. I think authors of such reports have an obligation to clearly present all the pertinent facts, in a clear way. When they don’t, we should ask the question, “Why?”
          (Speaking of “clear”, another thing this report does is NOT show error bars in graphs where they should be shown. Even the facts actually shown in the report are not, in the real world, as simple as the author would have us believe.)

          1. Are these commercials on the web, and if so, do you have a link? I looked, but I’m probably looking for the wrong thing. I thought George was talking about a joke commercial with giraffes and aliens, but it sounds like you’re talking about something else.

          3. There has to be an explanation for why the Antarctic ice is growing.
            1) could be it’s getting colder and more ice is forming.
            2) could be it’s getting thinner and spreading out.
            3) could be the antarctic shelves are moving out to sea, repositioning
            from inland to the coasts.

            each one would be a plausible explanation for the Antarctic growing,
            but you have to have a theory for that.

            Rand prefers howling to theory, but that’s just Rand.

          4. each one would be a plausible explanation for the Antarctic growing, but you have to have a theory for that.

            No, I don’t, you moron.

            Rand prefers howling to theory, but that’s just Rand.

            I never “howl,” you moron.

  4. Charles, if you are representative of the conservative American rocket scientist, then Ares I, Constellation, SLS and Orion are perfectly reasonable results of your space advocacy. Keep up the good work!

    You are a Michael Griffin clone. No, I don’t read your report. Why bother?

    1. Could you spell out your reasoning? As a liberal democrat, I nearly always disagree with Charles Lurio whenever he talks about politics (and very sadly “climate change topics” are politicized) , but how do you think his politics influences his space advocacy?

    2. Thank you for finding possibly the most offensive insult by calling me a “Mike Griffin clone.” If you did read the Report you might understand what breathtakingly vacuous nonsense your statement is.

      I’m actually far more open to ideas across the political spectrum than some think.

      Let me just note that along with Rand, I am concerned with empirical evidence when it comes to climate change. Two examples that concern me are increased ocean temperatures and Greenland ice darkening/melting. But I don’t like it when scientists go off the deep end with alarmism based upon dubious models because they evidently think the public is too stupid to listen to anything else.

      1. Framing everything with apocalyptic rhetoric is damaging their cause rather than helping it. Everyone but the children know that the world is not going to end. Scaring children might come back to bite the alarmists when the children mature and discover the world is not as it was prophesied to be.

        1. We don’t know what the future holds, but there are lots of ways for the world to end — the sun getting hotter over the next 500 million years (sans intelligent intervention) is a threat to life on Earth unless, again, there is intelligent mitigation. But lets think about near term threats:

          if someone used exactly the words you used in your above comment to downplay
          a) the B612 Foundation’s warnings about asteroid strikes,
          b) the CDC warnings about pandemics, or
          c) Rand’s warnings about “leftists”,

          what you would say to them?

          1. Well, I would have the hundred people who got superficial wounds from the asteroid in Russia to sit down with the guy who lost his azaleas to climate change, and then have them chat with the ghosts of the one hundred plus million people murdered by leftists, and see if they can agree on some kind of hazard metric.

          2. I’ll give it a try:

            A) Asteroid strikes: Asteroid strikes are rare, but can be highly damaging. Although it makes sense to allocated a small amount of resources to detection and removal where necessary, the economy should not be endangered to avoid this low level risk.

            B) Pandemics: Pandemics are rare, but can be highly damaging. Although it makes sense to allocated a small amount of resources to detection and removal where necessary, the economy should not be endangered to avoid this low level risk.

            C) Leftists: Leftists have unfortunately found a way to get approximately half the voters to agree with their point of view. They are currently using that leverage to make it dangerous for those with alternate viewpoints to express those views. (See recent reactions to stances on Homosexuality, and threats about Global Warming) This is a blatant power grab, which if successful will likely lead to civil war. Fortunately it is unlikely to succeed, but effort to prevent it’s success is likely a good investment. Note that this civil war has both a higher likelihood than any of the preceding, and a greater severity…

            D) Global Warming: Global Warming may be caused by humans and may or may not exist (as a phenomenon separate from random hot periods, no one is denying that temperatures rose on average for two decades, then remained approximately stable for one decade), but is probably not highly damaging. Although it makes sense to allocated a small amount of resources to quantification and amelioration if necessary, the economy should not be endangered to avoid this low level risk.

      2. dubious models

        I think rather that climate scientists are more concerned about 1) what their models tell them about reality, and 2) what their peers think of their models and their conclusions. Ill informed,innumerate public citizens like yourself don’t even figure into anything as far as I can see. So hold your beliefs.

        They’re all you have, Charles. The rest of it is … crap, especially your ideas about commercial space. Even more poignant considering the intellectual deficiencies of the voting public and their representatives, but the delusions run clear across the board in new space as well. Bravo.

        Old space isn’t the only nut space. Now remember, stay off the airlines and out of the emergency rooms. Those guys use models too.

        3. Charles, for whatever it is worth, I deeply appreciate your informative brand of space advocacy.

        4. I think rather that climate scientists are more concerned about 1) what their models tell them about reality, and 2) what their peers think of their models and their conclusions.

          This concern can be encapsulated in one word, “funding”. Because climate change is perceived as being a real and serious danger, a lot of people are doing sexy climatology rather than pushing papers in some office.

Comments are closed.