Lion of the Blogosphere

Interesting climate change comment

This comment was on Scott Adam’s blog:

My climate change skepticism comes from an entirely different direction — I work in litigation and deal a lot with expert witnesses.

Everything about the “support” for climate change looks like the things that an expert witness does when they want to support their client but have bupkis for facts. It’s not just any particular thing — it is the intuitive pattern of behavior. “It’s too complicated to explain, but me and my colleagues all agree.” “This is all commonly accepted in the scientific community.” “Sure, the raw data appears to disprove my theory, but it hasn’t been properly adjusted yet.” “The predictions I made before didn’t pan out, but that is because I didn’t have X data yet (usually the disproving data that now proves the new but identical-result theory.)

All in all, the climate change crowd acts like a biased expert witness with a bad set of facts.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 2, 2017 at EST pm

Posted in Science

34 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Do you agree that humans caused the CO2 level to go up from 250 to 400 ppm? Just to sort out and express your ideas.

    bombexpert

    January 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • That’s probably simple math based on how much fossil fuels have been burned since we started using them, and the volume of air around the planet. Although a warming ocean could cause some extra carbon dioxide to be released, or cause the increasing carbon dioxide to be absorbed less quickly than if the ocean were colder.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • Do you acknowledge that CO2 comprises about .04% of the atmosphere and has no impact at all on climate or weather? Just to sort out and express your knowledge….

      hard9bf

      January 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • Do you agree that even if man caused CO2 levels to rise from 250 to 400 ppm, that extra 150 parts per million, or .00015%, increase in CO2 has no effect on weather or climate? Just to sort out and express your critical thinking faculties….

      hard9bf

      January 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • Do you agree that a miniscule .00015% increase in CO2, regardless of its source, is an utterly irrelevant bit player in the atmosphere when compared to puny argon, which comprises about 1% of the atmosphere? Just to sort out and probe your sincerity….

      hard9bf

      January 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • you know very well that CO2 guides the absolute water vapor content in the air and that water is the main driving factor in the GHE – but this is very basic knowledge and you are very likely to know this…. so where are you comming from?

        – the CO2 change and content can be gauged via isotopic analysis, because human made CO2 has different content of C isotopes

        – by the way, this is how completely same molecules/substances can be traced to its origins – so for example lab made testosterone can be (in principle) proven to be different normal human testosterone

        bombexpert

        January 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • “Do you agree that humans caused the CO2 level to go up from 250 to 400 ppm? Just to sort out and express your ideas.”

      See, this is where the lies begin. The better question to ask is, what parade of horribles or what dire predictions have climate scientists made about CO2 that have actually come true?

      map

      January 2, 2017 at EST pm

  2. The climate change crowd is the same crowd who cares so much about the environment they are perfectly willing to let runaway population growth and migration destroy the entire planet.

    jjbees

    January 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • They do believe in a Woman’s Beautiful Right to Choose Infanticide — you gotta give them that. And I agree with their stance on this topic, but not for White people. Whites should have no access to abortion under any circumstance — we’re an endangered species, comprising a small and dwindling percentage of the human population.

      The climate change crowd supports protecting endangered species everywhere….. except White homo sapiens.

      hard9bf

      January 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Google “fist baby 2017”. There are still a few white babies being born. A few.

        Rosenmops

        January 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • +1

      If you’re not alarmed above all about Africa’s demographics, you’re not really interested in preventing extinction and climate change.

      owentt

      January 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • This is very strange, because I don’t support any of this – I’m perfectly fine with the US burning as much coal and methane as it can, also I am opposed to runaway 3rd world population explosion (that has been largely getting under control), I also don’t support open borders or any other nonsense

      – but ones has to be true to himself and not to subscribe to any ideology, which most of the AGW denialists do

      Watching the right-wing AGW denialists is about as funny as watching lefty IQ denialists or MAO-2R/3R/4R denialists. Both are arquing against things that can be (largely) easily measured and have already been measured.

      bombexpert

      January 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • “measured”. You mean like the temperature? Is there anything about the modern temperature data that makes you worried about the future. Are you aware that the best guesstimates are that the very mild increase in winter/nighttime lows will actually save more lives than otherwise?

        Generally, comparing the study of genetics or test score statistics with climate “science” is to conflate two wildly different things. Climate “science” does not follow anything like the scientific method and its requirements for double-blind, closed-system, repeatably verification of simple hypotheses. More specifically, your use of “CO2 guides the absolute water vapor content” above is evidence that you’ve been hoodwinked into believing that there are defined and understood cause-and-effect mechanisms.

        not my name

        January 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • ….wow, wow. You’re a compsci guy, right?

        So, do you agree that change in CO2 concentration changes the limit on water vapor content in air and therby increasing the greenhouse effect (all other factors being held constant)?

        There are only about 4 other factors: cloud coverage in different parts of the world (+ time dependency), other greenhouse gasses, ground albedo and solar output. Tell me, what of these can not be measured and modeled?

        bombexpert

        January 3, 2017 at EST am

      • ….wow, wow. You’re a compsci guy, right?

        You’re a twelve year old, right?

        do you agree that change in CO2 concentration changes the limit on water vapor content in air and therby increasing the greenhouse effect (all other factors being held constant)?

        Honestly, I’m guess what the words “CO2 concentration changes the limit on water vapor content” means. You might be referring to the hypothesized positive feedback whereby co2 increases temperature which increases water vapor which increases temperature. Which is typical climate “science” just-so-story-ism.

        not my name

        January 3, 2017 at EST am

      • The point is that these things can be modeled and measured, a just-so-story is a description of un-falsifiable hypothesis. The CO2/water vapor model has been proposed from the very beggining. I’m obviously not a native speaker, if something sounds confusing, please free to point it out/ask.

        bombexpert

        January 3, 2017 at EST pm

  3. Everything about the “support” for evolution looks like the things that an expert witness does when they want to support their client but have bupkis for facts. It’s not just any particular thing — it is the intuitive pattern of behavior. “It’s too complicated to explain, but me and my colleagues all agree.” “This is all commonly accepted in the scientific community.” “Sure, speciation has never been observed, but trust my evolutionary inference — how else would you explain the variety of life on our planet?”

    hard9bf

    January 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • This is Scott Adams’ point. It’s better to be uncertain where uncertainty is warranted.

      Jefferson

      January 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Yes. And if there were reasonable alternative theories to the Theory of Evolution, a lot more skepticism would be warranted.

        In the case of global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it, there is a very reasonable alternative: Mankind’s activities are likely to cause modest warming but not enough to result in serious harm. This hypothesis it completely consistent with scientific theory and the observed evidence.

        fortaleza84

        January 2, 2017 at EST pm

  4. I’m a fan of the “old-school” conservationists (i.e., the Sierra Club). Their thinking was: why import more immigrants to our country, where they’ll cause more environmental damage?

    That’s more true now more than ever. Importing immigrants from third-world countries to the US will increase the carbon footprint, thereby making immigration bad for the environment.

    GondwanaMan

    January 2, 2017 at EST pm

  5. Another red flag: “Climate change” fits the basic pattern of “the world is coming to an end but if you give me money and power I might be able to save it”

    Another red flag: All of the solutions proposed for climate change just happen to coincide with Leftist goals — higher taxes; transfer of wealth from developed countries to the third world; more government control; transfers of wealth from rural parts of the US to cities; etc.

    fortaleza84

    January 2, 2017 at EST pm

  6. Along the lines suggested by the commenter who works in litigation, while at a construction defect firm in SF in 1999 I overheard the following partial telephone conversation: “we’re going to win this case because our whore’s better than your whore.”

    Explainer21

    January 2, 2017 at EST pm

  7. The commenter understands Cialdini’s “Authority Principle.” Same reason medical advertisements say “9 out of 10 doctors agree…” etc…

    Bilbo Baggins

    January 2, 2017 at EST pm

  8. “you know very well that CO2 guides the absolute water vapor content in the air ”

    No. Why would it? Except under extremes of pressure and temperature, all of the gasses in air behave as ideal gasses. This means that physics, not chemistry is the prevailing force. The temperature of the air is pretty much the only factor which determines the maximum content of moisture that can be held.

    dbp

    January 3, 2017 at EST am

  9. The commentary you shared is ill-informed and smacks of the fallacy “attack the messenger”. The facts are easily obtained, but not many people seem interested in the facts, the science or the measurements. When provided, they are either ignored or derided. Climate change denialism is simply indefensible, which if this person truly was a litigator, would know, understand what “evidence” really means in any argument. So the litigator is doing what all these so-called “experts” are doing – interjecting doubt (which is of course, what litigators do, often defending the guilty in the course of their “jobs”).

    The only thing “interesting” about this guys comment is that he’s a blithering idiot and you found it interesting (I didn’t). I doubt that’s what you meant.

    Jeff

    January 3, 2017 at EST pm

    • I’m glad there at least is no risk of “global warming” anymore – only “climate change” which may consist of higher or lower temperatures, too much or too little snow, too many or too few major storms, and several documentary films.

      Rogal Dorn

      January 3, 2017 at EST pm

  10. What is the difference between the normal deference to experts? There are many cases where the science is complex, messy and uncertain enough that laymen usually defer to experts. Why should one suspend judgement in the case of climate science but trust experts in most other cases? Obviously there are some fields like climate science with huge financial and economic interests but this is also true in pharma/medicine or nuclear energy. So I’d say either defer to experts most of the time or try to figure out as much as an intelligent layman can and form your own opinion. But don’t pick and chose (or give an argument why in certain cases it is correct to defer to experts, in others not).

    parrhesia

    January 4, 2017 at EST am

    • Climate science smells like a hoax, to people who can smell such things, including myself, Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert), and Donald Trump.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 4, 2017 at EST am

      • As recently as 1990 no one described himself as a climate scientist. Now there are thousands of them. The gov’t jacked up funding into the billions of dollars and you can only get that funding if you are an avowed believer. So, duh, all climate scientists agree. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be climate scientists.

        not too late

        January 4, 2017 at EST pm

    • “Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”

      http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2016/12/31/skeptical_climate_scientists_coming_in_from_the_cold.html#disqus_thread

      not too late

      January 4, 2017 at EST pm

  11. If I have a model that can correctly predict the future, as the GW crowd seem to think that they have, I will be the first Trillionaire in history. Not only will I survive but thrive. There are many markets that allow you to make a bet on the future. And if you are right, you will be really really wealthy.

    For example, there are many models that predict that the Patriots will win the Superbowl. If you put all your money there, you will make a fortune soon. And if the models are wrong, well, then you’ll be really poor.
    What does the global warming model tell us and who will profit from it?
    As of right now, you can examine human behavior and know who are betting on what.
    I would assume that with global warming and a rising sea level, people who own beach-front properties are in trouble soon. Who own these properties in the US? The smart, rich, white people. This is a very powerful demographic. In fact, not only in the US but worldwide. Rich and powerful people are the ones who own the majority of beach-front properties. Do you see them panicking and leaving the beach in drove? No, they don’t. Do these properties drop in value since they will be underwater literally soon? Do the insurers raise rate on these properties or just outright refusing to insure them (due to being underwater or severe weather damages)? No.
    This tells us that not that many powerful people believe in Global Warming. Their words might be otherwise but their action indicate that they don’t think so. If they truly believe in Global Warming, they would have done something about it.

    I see a lot of poor and powerless people wasting their time obsessing over this issue when the ones who will be hurt the most, with the most to lose, and the ones with the power for pushing legislation don’t really care about it. Lots of people love to talk about Global Warming. But that’s it, mostly it’s all talk. Just mental masturbation. Do you see those predicting dire consequences from Global Warming doing anything about it? Sure, they have many PC things to say but that’s about it. Look at Bill Gates. He’s so concern about Global Warming that he spent $0 and zero time on it. He spent more time on reinventing the toilet than Global Warming. And he’s not alone. Look at all other billionaires. For example, Ellison bought an expensive Hawaiian island which theoretically should be underwater soon due to Global Warming. They should talk to him and convince him how stupid he is. Ask him to donate that money for advancing the cause against Global Warming. Like maybe buying off a few major politicians and lobbyists.

    This is all absurd and weird. It’s like if you were told that Superman’s parents were predicting dire consequences for the planet Krypton and yet spent most of their free time at the beach or playing golf instead of building a spaceship for Superman. It’s that absurd. When you spend zero time and zero money, it shows everyone your true conviction. You just want to be PC and spew the same party line but you aren’t convinced enough to do anything about it.

    Those who talk big about Global Warming, please show us your true conviction by betting big like maybe shorting the insurance companies (look at AIG’s stock going from $1400 to $30 in 2008). Moving to higher ground. Buying inexpensive farmland. Take advantage of what the model is telling you to do. Not just more talk. Your own inaction tells us that you don’t really believe what the model is predicting. Lots of talks but no skin in the game as usual. What’s the consequences for them if their prediction is wrong? Anything? Or are they going to claim that their effort has actually solved the crisis when it’s not even real to begin with?

    Perhaps, the people with the model will be vindicated like the people who foresaw the mortgage crisis. They and their model were vindicated and they made a lot of money as shown in movies such as “The Big Short”. There will be winners and losers. If you truly believe in one way or the other, it’s time to put down a big bet. It would be ironic if you truly convince that you could see the future and yet you weren’t able to position yourself to profit from it.

    Neal

    January 4, 2017 at EST pm

    • the predicted sea level rise by the end of the century is about 0.5 m with predictions between 0.4-0.8 m…..and only in the latter part, predictions for 2070 are ~ 0.2 m

      so internal consistency ≠ external consistency, beware of this trap

      bombexpert

      January 5, 2017 at EST am

      • Ok, so forget those Hollywood hypes of “Waterworld” or “Hunger Game” scenario in my lifetime then. Beyond that, I plan to die long before anything bad happened. So, it should be all good. Where can I get at the official prediction? I want to see the specifics that I can profit from (like which states or areas to avoid). And what are the dire consequences of Global Warming? If not rising sea level, why should anyone care?

        Neal

        January 5, 2017 at EST pm

      • yes, nothing extreme in our life-times, the problems start like in 2150-2200, assuming there is no change in CO2/CH4 output until ~ 2100 and 9×10^9 population, IPCC predictions and stuff like that

        bombexpert

        January 6, 2017 at EST am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: