Lion of the Blogosphere

No one has convinced me to believe in “climate change”

The climate “science” complex doesn’t behave like dispassionate scientists interested in discovering the truth, they behave like religious evangelists whose goal is to convert others into believing in “climate change” and who suppress any dissenting views.

Let me point out again that “climate change” means that within the next century there will be extreme global warming caused by mankind’s carbon emissions which will have catastrophic consequences for mankind and the planet. However the climate-change evangelists like to use trickery and often change the goalposts so that they can get someone to admit that the climate is changing (for any reason and to any extent even a very tiny extent) and then claim that’s part of the “consensus” that within the next century there will be extreme global warming caused by mankind’s carbon emissions which will have catastrophic consequences for mankind and the planet

I have never seen any articles about “climate change” that tell me why, as someone with a scientific mind, I should believe in it. All the articles ever say is “consensus, consensus, consensus” and “this is the hottest year on record.”

Consensus is not a good reason to believe in anything. If you live in Saudi Arabia, then there’s a consensus that Allah is the one true God and that Koran is His literal words.

There used to be a consensus that the earth was the center of the universe and everything you saw in the sky revolved around the stationary earth.

There’s a lot of hubris to think that somehow we’ve finally advanced to an era when the consensus, even one of so-called “scientists,” is never wrong about anything.

There’s also a consensus that there’s no difference in IQ between races, but anyone who has seriously studied the subject with an open mind knows that consensus is false, but if you dare say so in public you are called a “racist” and you could be fired from your job. The political correctness surrounding “climate change” is almost as suffocating.

The story of the Emperor’s New Clothes teaches us that few adults have the fortitude to believe something different than what everyone else believes, even if what everyone else believes is obviously false. Yes, it’s a fairytale, but one based on observed human behavior. It even applies to “scientists” (although it shouldn’t because science is supposed to be about reproducible experiments and not consensus).

So the only real evidence we have is alleged higher temperatures. Yes, if true, it’s “evidence” that the planet is getting warmer, but its hardly proof of anything at all.

For starters, I am very suspicious of these global temperature measurements because, as stated before, it’s obvious that the climate “science” complex is about evangelizing and not about the actual search for truth. Independent skeptical scientists have no way of reproducing these global temperature measurements. We have to take their word for it.

Even if this year, or the last few years, or whatever, are warmer since we’ve been keeping records, (1) the old records aren’t very accurate, and (2) we haven’t been keeping records for that long. Who knows for sure if the temperature today is warmer than it was during the Medieval Warm Period, or before the last Ice Age started? What we do know for certain is that the planet goes through warming and cooling periods, and since no one knows for sure what causes them, there’s no way of knowing if the current warming period (which may be measured incorrectly) has causes other than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So if you want to convince me of “climate change,” don’t talk to me about a consensus, and don’t talk to me about the alleged global average temperature. Find some scientific reason for why I should believe it.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 7, 2017 at 10:09 am

Posted in Uncategorized

62 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I agree with everything you wrote, but will go further:

    Even if the claims that the Earth is warming are true, claims about changes in climate and then the economic impact of such changes are 2nd and 3rd order problems.

    I have a scientific background and find it hard to believe that any scientist would trust models for what are clearly intractable computational problems. It is just mind-boggling.

    dbp

    June 7, 2017 at 10:48 am

  2. This is my favorite post in the last few years!

    I WILL use this the next time someone brings up climate fraud around me.

    jjbees

    June 7, 2017 at 11:28 am

  3. The world sure looks like neofeudalism. Complete with burning of dissenters.

    Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

    June 7, 2017 at 11:50 am

  4. This is strikingly well written, not a wasted word anywhere. Just one amendment- goalposts get moved, not “changed.”

    As for substance, whenever someone asks me how I could take such a strong position against the consensus when I have no scientific background, I always say that the same people who buy the consensus also talk tell me, e.g., that women are paid less than men. And no one has ever identified a single woman lawyer, doctor, cop or government burueaucrat who’s paid less than a man of similar experience/responsibility.

    Marty

    June 7, 2017 at 11:58 am

  5. Steve Hsu had a good post on climate change the other day (the comments are worth reading):

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/06/epistemic-caution-and-climate-change.html

    Horace Pinker

    June 7, 2017 at 12:05 pm

  6. I got interested in this subject around 2005 and followed closely the hockey-stick debacle, wherein a (liberal) Toronto retired mining engineer, with a knack for statistical analysis, demolished Michael Mann’s credibility and showed the abysmal lack of statistical knowledge in the climate “science” community.

    ClimateGate eventually followed, and the warmists have been struggling to maintain their narrative ever since.

    Imagine there was a real scientist who called sceptics “deniers”. Wouldn’t he be reviled and ridiculed by his fellow scientists?

    Imagine there was a real scientist who called CO2 “pollution”, when CO2 is the feedstock for ALL carbon-based life on Earth. Wouldn’t he be the laughing-stock of his peers?

    I could go on. And on.

    I do notice that the left is as convinced that Trump is a pawn for Putin as they are of “climate change”. That tells me quite a bit.

    gda

    June 7, 2017 at 12:16 pm

  7. Bravo! Exactly the same as my own beliefs.

    CamelCaseRob

    June 7, 2017 at 12:17 pm

  8. @ LotB

    Great post. Your blog has always been fun to read.

    Lowe

    June 7, 2017 at 12:23 pm

  9. Excellent post. Here is another example of consensus being wrong:

    Prior to the early 80’s, essentially no medical doctor believed that ulcers could be caused by bacteria. The general prescription for ulcers were antacids. I’m sure a survey could have been conducted that showed 97% of doctors believed that it was not possible.

    In the early 80’s, an Australian physician showed that ulcers were cause by bacteria, H. pylori, and that they could be treated with antibiotics. He went on to win the Nobel Prize in medicine for his discovery. The notion that a consensus has any inherent scientific meaning is non-sense and is fundamentally unscientific, which is not surprising, since most of the proponents of climate change have no scientific training. If you gave them two climate papers, one that was pro-climate change, and one anti-, and you removed the abstract, introduction, and conclusion (only showed the analysis portions), I dare say none of them could figure out which one was which, or argue convincingly why one was right and one was wrong.

    I have some background in computer modeling. Climate models are not analytical models, they are only approximations. That means they are inherently wrong because they cannot possibly represent reality. This does not mean they are useless, but they are useful only to the extent that they can PREDICT results. They are all statistically derived models based on historical data that was somehow chosen.

    Do you ever hear about any specific model of climate? It’s always “climate change,” without reference to any specific model.

    Another thing:

    a) if it’s colder in one place, it is still climate change, because climate is global, and colder in an area is weather (local)
    b) if the temperature hasn’t change much, see a)
    c) if it’s warmer, well that is CO2/methane warming the atmosphere.

    I bet you can get all of those answers from climate change proponents. This means that ANY observation supports the climate change hypothesis, from which it logically follows that climate change is unfalsifiable. This puts it in the realm of religion.

    ASF

    June 7, 2017 at 12:47 pm

    • Excellent post.

      peterike

      June 7, 2017 at 9:44 pm

  10. So basically since the liberal consensus is that 2 + 2 = 4, it must be 5. How hard of a grasp is it that pollution is a real thing?

    A Reader

    June 7, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    • How hard of a grasp is it that pollution is a real thing?

      Warming is not pollution.

      And if the liberal consensus had an AGW model with predictive value they would also be able to predict the weather. If they can’t build an accurate weather simulation based off their warming simulations then:

      1) In reality they do not understand the climate system and how it reacts to carbon.
      2) If they do not understand how the climate functions as carbon levels rise then there is no reason to base policy decisions on their magic “simulations”.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 7, 2017 at 6:25 pm

  11. It was easy to tell climate change was a scam when the only solution is more asinine regulations and cheating the working public of more money via gasoline taxes, energy taxes, carbon taxes, or whatever other nonsense they were trying to coerce. How would stealing more money and giving it to a government to solve alleged problem no one could not explain.

    Maybe the US could help with climate change by cutting the military significantly and shutting down most of the federal agencies.

    Anyone with some reasoning and reading comprehension could figure out they were full of it. Nova had a great special a few years ago about satellite data. Now way can they model atmospheric phenomena, ocean currents, and land use, ice flows and come up with a viable climate model. Or how the GW can’t come up with a good explanation for the warming periods that occurred when the human population was much less or publicize science that shows that CO2 levels were many times higher than now while the earth was almost a ball of ice.

    Someone

    June 7, 2017 at 12:59 pm

  12. That was a pretty good summary for why I’m skeptical as well. At some point, it’s incumbent upon those making a claim to produce solid evidence. And global warmers simply haven’t done that. Now, I’m certainly willing to listen to any reasonable argument. But after years of them failing to make their case I’ve tuned them out. I’m simply fed up with them.

    destructure

    June 7, 2017 at 2:28 pm

  13. I agree with the other commenters that this is one of your best and most well written posts.

    Andrew E.

    June 7, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    • It was just a quickly written rant.

      • I think you sound really dumb, especially when you say that you need real evidence the climate is changing not just evidence the temperature is (?).

        And there is a consensus that blacks have lower iqs among intelligence researchers. And all scientific disciplines are complicated and difficult to understand like climate science is.

        And even if we don’t really understand the climate, which I agree with, that goes two ways. Yes we shouldn’t put much faith in these models and projections but also that we shouldn’t be messing around with such a vital system that we don’t understand. Or Or do you not accept atmospheric CO2 concentration data either?

        Magnavox

        June 7, 2017 at 6:43 pm

      • Yes we shouldn’t put much faith in these models and projections but also that we shouldn’t be messing around with such a vital system that we don’t understand.

        If the models don’t accurately reflect the underlying mechanisms then there are no policy recommendations to make because we don’t understand HOW we are “messing around with such a vital system”.

        I think you sound really dumb,

        Then perhaps Lion should delete all your future comments and send you off to another blog.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 7, 2017 at 8:43 pm

      • If the models don’t accurately reflect the underlying mechanisms then there are no policy recommendations to make because we don’t understand HOW we are “messing around with such a vital system”.

        We do know that emissions of greenhouse gases are going up and that they’re going into the atmosphere and the ocean. We should just assume that throwing off the concentration of those gases to levels never seen during habitable portions of the planets history is a bad idea. If you divorce conservatism from the shameless shilling for the wealthy and large corporations, this is the sort of common sense stuff that is left.

        Magnavox

        June 8, 2017 at 3:36 am

      • “throwing off the concentration of those gases to levels never seen during habitable portions of the planets history is a bad idea”

        That’s not anyone’s “idea,” it’s a byproduct of industrialization.

        One could also say it’s a bad idea for humans to reproduce so rapidly, crowing out every other species.

  14. Heretic! Burn him!!!

    Gilbert Ratchet

    June 7, 2017 at 2:47 pm

  15. Excellent post. Just one addition. The climate change crowd is not just about “evangelism,” it’s very much about MONEY. As the saying goes, if you want to do a study on why squirrels in Central Park are losing their fur, nobody will care. If you want to do a study on “how Global Warming is causing squirrels in Central Park to lose their fur,” you will get a $500,000 grant.

    We hear constantly about the few pennies oil companies throw at research, and hear nothing about the BILLIONS that are spent EVERY YEAR on government funding. It’s a giant grift, like everything else in America.

    peterike

    June 7, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    • Ideology is an exponentially more powerful motivator than money.

      J1

      June 7, 2017 at 4:21 pm

      • “Ideology is an exponentially more powerful motivator than money.”

        For the dimwits that march in Green parades or write mouth-foaming rants for the New Yorker, yes. For the academics that churn our reams of fake global warming data, it’s ALL about the benjamins.

        peterike

        June 7, 2017 at 9:46 pm

    • “…squirrels in Central Park are losing their fur…”

      Please tell me that’s a thing that’s actually happening!

      Jokah Macpherson

      June 7, 2017 at 6:32 pm

  16. Consensus is not a good reason to believe in anything. If you live in Saudi Arabia, then there’s a consensus that Allah is the one true God and that Koran is His literal words.

    Not even the glowing Saudi orb will convince you the Koran is the word of Allah?

    The Undiscovered Jew

    June 7, 2017 at 6:19 pm

  17. or before the last Ice Age started.

    and none should be able to convince on that point, because it’s known to be…

    FALSE!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_forests_of_the_Cretaceous

    During this period, global average temperature was about 10 °C (18 °F) higher and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were approximately…2.5 times the current concentration in Earth’s atmosphere…Fossilized flora evidence suggests the presence of forests up to latitudes of 85° in both Northern and Southern hemispheres.

    18 degrees F sounds scary, but the effect isn’t that the tropics become uninhabitably hot.

    the effect is a much more uniform temperature from the equator to the poles.

    john holmes

    June 7, 2017 at 6:24 pm

  18. I think the Lion’s done a post on this before, but what characteristics cause people to be less likely to buy into a consensus opinion? I don’t think it’s necessarily fortitude; I think I’m less susceptible to consensus than the average person but I’m not particularly courageous or passionate or hard-working.

    I think several factors that may have a mild to moderate association are: IQ (smarter), sex (male), social connectedness (more socially isolated) but none of these are very strong. Greg Cochran has talked about this some as well.

    I ask partly because if we know what the factors are, and they are changeable, we can reduce the extent to which people blindly buy in to consensus opinion. Which is probably mostly a good thing.

    Jokah Macpherson

    June 7, 2017 at 6:38 pm

    • @Jokah

      Links for the Cochran posts?

      “what characteristics cause people to be less likely to buy into a consensus opinion?”

      “Meta-contrarianism” comes to mind:

      http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metacontrarianism/

      Horace Pinker

      June 7, 2017 at 8:34 pm

      • I don’t have anything specific but I know it’s been a general theme of his that very smart people can convince themselves to believe in stupid things. I know he talks about this some in one of his James Miller podcasts.

        So basically the point of the meta-contrarianism thing is that not sticking to consensus opinion kicks in around some fairly high IQ level? Like I said above, I think there’s a mild association, but there’s plenty of examples of very smart people who have pretty conventional opinions relative to society at large.

        Jokah Macpherson

        June 7, 2017 at 10:24 pm

    • It’s natural selection.

      It is helpful to have a certain small % of the tribe be contrarian because, under certain conditions, the majority opinion is wrong and the only thing that saves the tribe is the contrarian. It is an evolutionary advantage.

      jjbees

      June 7, 2017 at 10:29 pm

  19. There is such a thing as “climate change”, because the world has changed over thousands and millions of years: Ice Ages, the dinosaurs dying out, the continents moving around, meteorite impacts, and volcanic eruptions. The most recent change was the Little Ice Age, from roughly 1650 to 1850 (or 1300-1850, depending on how you count it). That last event was well-documented in the records of the time.

    The relevant matter today is whether climate change can be man-made, and the best answers I have seen are something like: maybe, but we don’t really know, and we can’t be sure of how much of an effect it is, and anything we do to try to stop global warming or global cooling won’t have much effect anyway. So there is no need to be unduly panicked or worried (especially when the climate can be affected by things we can’t control, like volcanoes, or the amount of energy from the sun, or variations in the Earth’s orbit or axial tilt).

    Yankee

    June 7, 2017 at 6:57 pm

  20. The basic physics of global it well established and no serious scientist questions the basic physics. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes more heat energy from the sun to be trapped and less to be radiated back into space.

    After that it gets more complicated and less certain. Where does that excess head energy go to? It is thought that only a small percentage goes to warming the Earth’s air and most (90-95%) goes into warming the oceans. The heat exchange mechanism between the oceans and air is still not very well understood. The El Nino/La Nina cycle is thought to be caused by fluctuations in exchange of heat between the oceans and air. We really don’t know how much of the heat energy will be stored in the shallow ocean vs the deep ocean. What temperature data we have for the shallow oceans clearly show that the ocean is warming.

    The warming of the ocean is one of the causes of sea level rise, the water is expanding as it heats up. The heating of the ocean is also causing the north polar ice cap and the Antarctic coastal ice sheet to shrink. This combined with the shrinking of most (but not all) glaciers means more water in the oceans also contributing to sea level rise.

    Will these changes cause some catastrophic disaster in the future? There are people that suggest melting of the permafrost in Siberia will release large amounts of trapped CO2 and/or methane and this will cause temperature to go up very rapidly. I have no idea whether sometime like that is possible or likely, but do you really want to do an experiment to find out? Just pay no attention to global warming and in a few hundred years we will find out if there was some unknown factor that limited the heating or some run away effect that caused rapid heating that made much of the Earth uninhabitable.

    Note that given the current state of our technology with TV and radio, we are radiating a lot of radio signals into space. Those signals would be detectable by current radio telescope technology for quite some distance. Planetary systems like our own appear to be fairly common. The fact that we have not detected any radio signals from other planets in this area hints that civilizations cannot last very long at the current level of technology. Perhaps they evolve to some higher technology that we don’t understand that does not involve radio transmissions. Perhaps global warming and resource exhaustion limit them to a few hundred years at this level before they sink back to some more sustainable level of technology.

    mikeca

    June 7, 2017 at 7:50 pm

  21. Apologies, but this comment at Sailer’s is the best thing I’ve ever read on a blog:

    “The US has been since the 1960s or so, a country that promotes meritocracy. We are dedicated to giving scholarships to the underpriviledged, as well as allowing students with high SAT scores but who do not come from established and wealthy WASP families places in college. This means students coming up from the traditional lower classes are able to form connections and gain power. Many of these people are very ambitious and hard driving, and when you get enough of them gathered together, you get some strange social phenomenon.

    It never seems to occur to anybody that if you give opportunities to a lot of people in the lower classes, you end up with a bunch of people at or near the top of society with all the emotional baggage of the lower classes. People are lower class not just because they don’t have money, but because they’re very disfunctional. They’re psychologically messed up and prone to mental illnesses and abberant and self-defeating behaviors. They were often raised by messed-up parents, and they can’t get over their disastrous upbringing. Many of them have lousy genes and poisonous personalities. They are often insanely jealous of anyone who had it easier. They don’t get over their psychological problems. Promote enough of these people up the social ladder and you get an entire caste of messed-up people who think the same way. They can be totally destructive to the health of a society if there are enough of them and if they are given too much power.

    Think of a peasant village filled with petty resentments; jealousy of everyone else’s money, looks, brains, cool, or social connections; stupid and petty quarrels; and gossip that is constantly aimed at bringing others down whom they hate and resent (notice the resemblance to what’s being directed at Trump and his administration via the constant harping on the Russian thing?). Now make all these peasants into the aristocratic class that rules over you. You’ve got liberals in a nutshell.

    It never seems to occur to anyone that scholarships and opportunities should ONLY be given to students not just with good grades, but who pass a test indicating good psychological health and emotional adjustment. There are reasons why people who are emotionally confident and privileged end up running society. They do a better job of it. They don’t get bogged down in stupid crap, and they don’t try to destroy other people because they’re jealous of those people, and they don’t have a paranoid mentally that thinks everyone is out to get them, thus causing them to hunt down and squash every speck of opposition, either ideological (notice our SJWers trying to totally control all media and public discourse,) or personal (you say anything out of line they’ll try to get you fired).

    People born to privilege are confident instead of insecure, and they tend to think everyone below them likes and admires them. They usually believe in leaving people alone to live their lives as they see fit (which leads to a philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism and libertarianism), and which is the opposite of the paranoid and resentful mentality. Their confidence makes them believe that it’s normal to let everyone air their views instead of having them crushed, and this leads to greater consensus and the creation of democratic governments.

    If you raise up hard-driving men from the lower classes who have a lot of emotional baggage , you can get a Joseph Stalin or a Chairman Mao, who spend their lives trying to destroy the upper classes and middle classes, because they see both as their personal oppressors, and who they’re exceedingly jealous of and angry at, and they’ll destroy anyone else who annoys them for any reason. Liberals, (and men like Stalin and Mao) never recognize their own emotional unfitness to rule. They don’t have the insight to understand that their emotional baggage makes them tyrants, not small-d democrats.”

    Explainer21

    June 7, 2017 at 8:32 pm

    • I tend to see something different.

      A hundred years ago there were smart people in the working class because their families could not afford to send them to college.

      After WWII that changed. Almost everyone smart enough to go to college, went to college. They generally married spouses that also went to college and had children that were smart enough to go to college.

      The working class is generally those not smart enough to go to college. They marry spouses who were not smart enough to go to college and have children that are usually not smart enough to go to college.

      The result is much less class mobility. The classes have sorted themselves by intelligence and that reduces the opportunity for mobility.

      This is compounded by automation which is eliminating many good paying working class jobs. Not everyone is smart enough to go to college. We may already be sending too many people to college and the for profit college industry is ripping off the working class by selling them worthless degrees.

      I see this as the main economic problem of the next 20 years. Trump promised to bring back good manufacturing and coal mining jobs, but I think that is a pipe dream. We need another plan.

      mikeca

      June 7, 2017 at 9:49 pm

    • this comment at Sailer’s is the best thing I’ve ever read on a blog:

      You aren’t well read then if that’s the “best” you’ve ever seen.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 7, 2017 at 11:10 pm

    • Much of the dysfunction of the striving poor who make it through merit is due to being low-status individuals who operate in environments where they are outclassed by others in obvious and important ways. They can’t form relationships of any kind because they are not equal to the people around them so they build resentment.

      This, btw, is the essential thinking behind the works of Charles Dickens. Dickens is a tireless critic of the striving upstart.

      Did you know that one of his characters, I believe in Bleak House, written in 1850, had a woman who cared more about the starving people of Africa than she did about her own children?

      map

      June 8, 2017 at 12:24 am

      • Here is an example from Bleak House:

        http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bleakhouse/section1/page/2/

        Summary: Chapter 4, “Telescopic Philanthropy”

        Kenge tells Esther, Ada, and Richard that they will spend the night at the Jellybys’ house and says goodbye, leaving them to Mr. Guppy, the driver. At the Jellybys’, a child has his head stuck in a railing, and Esther helps him. Many dirty children are swarming through the house when Mrs. Jellyby introduces herself. Esther observes an older child, pale and quiet, sitting at a writing desk. Mrs. Jellyby tells them about her charity work in Africa and ignores her children. Caddy, the girl at the writing desk, is writing out a letter that Mrs. Jellyby dictates.

        The Jellybys’ house is in utter disarray, and there is no hot water or heat. Dinner is chaotic. Priscilla, the cook, is drunk. A man named Mr. Quayle discusses Africa with Mrs. Jellyby, while Mr. Jellyby sits silently.

        That night, Caddy appears at Esther’s door and professes her unhappiness at home. She says she wishes the whole family were dead.

        map

        June 8, 2017 at 12:26 am

    • According to your theory, then, the best thing to do would be to find extremely smart, but underprivileged kids, and given them even more money. This way they can a) repair any confidence shortcomings from their past through therapy, and b) never have to feel beneath someone with lower IQ, but more money than them.

      Ok, I agree with your proposal: let’s give more and larger scholarships to poor but smart Latinos, Blacks, and Asians. Let’s start telling them since they are little kids that they are the true top of the food chain, and that they are in fact better than their wealthier peers. Let them rule over all others in class councils and group activities. This way they don’t grow up with any inferiority complex or paranoia like you describe.

      Birdhunter

      June 10, 2017 at 11:33 am

  22. The basic case for global warming is that simple models predict that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will produce surface warming and that temperature observations to date have been roughly consistent with these predictions. Of course simple models leave out many things some of which might prove important so their predictions should be discounted accordingly. However I think it would be unwise to ignore them completely.

    James B. Shearer

    June 7, 2017 at 9:43 pm

    • You’re not even remotely correct. The models are full of second order effects like the thawing of the permafrost and the melting polar ice on albedo

      Magnavox

      June 8, 2017 at 3:39 am

      • I am aware that very complicated models exist but I wasn’t talking about them (as I am dubious that they are adding predictive value) which is why I referred to “simple” models. Making models more complicated doesn’t necessarily make them better.

        James B. Shearer

        June 8, 2017 at 11:51 pm

  23. Big cities with increasing of temperature because lack of green areas and atmospheric pollution is not a example of something can is happening on global scale? If antropic climate change is not factual what their deniers want suggest?? That global continuity of industrialization, large scale extinction of fauna and flora is acceptable?

    Santoculto

    June 7, 2017 at 9:51 pm

  24. Every time I turn around, the past gets “colder.”

    Of course the data that prove this are “proprietary.”

    And the code for the models can’t be shared because .

    And what’s a Monte Carlo analysis anyway?

    Some Guy

    June 7, 2017 at 10:57 pm

    • If you don’t have some closed form deterministic solution that describes the Earth’s climate at any particular point in time then you have to build a model that approximates Earth’s climate and play with that model to see how it changes when you alter the inputs. But how do you know if your model of the Earth’s climate is any good? Well you’d have to, say, take your model’s best guess for the path the Earth’s climate will take for, as Moldbug said, the next 100 years and then wait around to see that the Earth’s climate actually did follow that path to know that your model’s results have statistical significance and are therefore valid (hah!).

      And you generate your model’s best guess often by running what’s called a Monte Carlo analysis. Presumably, your model of the Earth’s climate will be very complex with lots of relationships, parameters and random variables. So you run your Earth model out for 100 years for one climate path and you do that lots of times, thousands of paths, and so long as each path run is independent from the others (by generating random or pseudorandom variables as inputs for each path) then your total simulation, ie. best guess, can be described by a normal probability distribution which allows you to say that the Earth’s climate for the next 100 years will range from X to Y average temperature with 95% statistical confidence. And the more paths you run the closer X and Y will be to each other.

      But the point is that the climate scientists have nothing like this. Again, to quote Moldbug (from memory), “All you need to predict the Earth’s climate is an accurate model of the Earth, likewise, all you need to do to reach Alpha Centauri is to jump really high. And the difference between the computing power we have and that which we’d need to model the Earth’s climate is like the difference between my vertical leap and that needed to reach Alpha Centauri.”

      Andrew E.

      June 8, 2017 at 12:24 am

    • “And what’s a Monte Carlo analysis anyway?”

      Checking stats before gambling, Mr. Bond…

      Vincent

      June 8, 2017 at 2:11 am

  25. Lion,
    I wanted to address one of your remarks unrelated to climate science:

    “There’s also a consensus that there’s no difference in IQ between races, but anyone who has seriously studied the subject with an open mind knows that consensus is false…”

    This is not true. Even the top experts in the field of psychometrics readily admit that while someday may be possible to detect fenotype-based groupings of alleles correlated with some form of intelligence, the results are still at least a few years into the future.

    More importantly, quantitative research shows that individual IQ overwhelms race as a predictor of socioeconomic status: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2015/04/income-weath-and-iq.html

    Quite frankly, the fact that you seem so fixated in the unproven, and unscientific implications of HBD as it relates to race suggests you have some quite unflattering personal biases.

    trap-n-skeet

    June 8, 2017 at 3:33 am

    • “quantitative research shows that individual IQ overwhelms race as a predictor of socioeconomic status”

      What does that have to do with what I wrote? Of course a high-IQ black is going to be more successful than a low-IQ white, at least in our “diverse” culture.

      • (The following sounds like unsubstantiated assertions, so if you want evidence, ask and I will provide it.)

        As I said before, HBD has not shown differences in IQ across races.

        Even if it had, for any practical distinction that you could make, for any purpose, HBD shows that race would be a terrible criteria to use. Factors such as individual differences, and socioeconomic background completely wash away the effect of race.

        My comment before has to do with many things you have written before. You seem to be relying on HBD as a way to rationalize what seems more like underlying racism.

        If I am getting this wrong, and you do understand the actual results of HBD studies, you should clarify your actual views, because so far a bunch of your readers are misinterpreting them thinking that they justify their own racist views.

        trap-n-skeet

        June 8, 2017 at 10:48 pm

  26. Look, just look at old pictures of, for example, glacier national park.
    Look at current pictures.
    You can see the icebergs disappeared.
    I am not talking about complicated models, I am talking about your eyes seeing it.
    And yes, There are valid points – we don’t know exactly how much the warming is natural, when and where will it stop, and how much damage it will do.
    But the climate has warmmed up considerably.
    We can also measure quite accurately the C02 concentrations in the atmosphere. They have also gone up. We don’t know exactly how much they contribute to warming, but we know they contribute.

    Now, the question is: Will humanity try to control C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions, or not?
    You are right we don’t know how much it will help.
    But should humanity take the risk?

    Yoav

    June 8, 2017 at 7:01 am

    • Humanity should not “risk” the massive downsides to NOT emitting CO2 when nothing is known about anything.

      • “We know that asbestos is cancerous, but we don’t know how much.
        The costs of replacing it in all buildings are just too high, so lets keep using it. ”

        That is basically what you are saying. I am saying that whatever the economic costs, which are unknown, the danger of not reducing CO2 emissions is we don’t know how bad it could get, and by the time we know it will be too late.

        Yoav

        June 8, 2017 at 1:10 pm

      • And the projected downsides are themselves the results of economic modeling that is even worse and less reliable than climate predictions.

        Magnavox

        June 9, 2017 at 1:49 am

  27. good video: relevant to this

    james n.s.w

    June 8, 2017 at 10:48 am

  28. Here’s an idea. Take a class on global warming, either online or in the real world.

    If the scientists are right, this is one of the most important issues of our day. Maybe it would be worth your time.

    Ken Hirsch

    June 8, 2017 at 7:26 pm

  29. It’s very clear that you do need a class when you say things like “…there have been no actual discoveries in physics that would change our understanding of how heat is transmitted through gasses since the 1970s when no one believed in global warming and some people even believed that another ice age was soon coming.”

    Scientists have known about global warming for a long time. Here’s a newspaper item from 1912: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5

    We’ve only been able to quantify it for about the last 45 years, but we’ve known it’s going to happen for much longer than that.

    Ken Hirsch

    June 8, 2017 at 10:04 pm

    • You didn’t say what discovery was made.

      • There were no new discoveries in physics required. The very first semi-realistic climate models that were made predicted global warming. See, e.g., https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/

        The early models were very simplified and had a lot of “if everything else stays the same” assumptions. So, at first, it was reasonable to be skeptical about whether they reflected reality. Now we have tremendously more sophisticated models and vast amounts of data about what is happening and the factors that affect climate.

        And the models still predict global warming.

        You are completely wrong that “no one believed in global warming” back in the 1970s. See The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 (PDF).

        At least consider the possibility that you have been misled by a vast propaganda campaign paid for by some of the world’s largest corporations. Consider the possibility that you might learn something about one of the most important issues. Take a class.

        Ken Hirsch

        June 9, 2017 at 2:36 am

      • Hirsch,

        You’re missing the point. The issue is not whether the climate is changing, whether it is warmer or not. The issue is whether this warming is man-made and, if so, whether it is damaging or not. The planet could warming simply because the sun flickers more output, for example.

        Lion’s point still stands. Climate scientists still act like evangelists, and not scientists. Politicians act irrationally given these so-called facts. Taxes and regulations go up, but getting rid of immigrants (which drives population growth and thus global warming) and preventing offshore-outsourcing (which would leave industry under our regulatory control) are all off the table.

        The rhetoric and behavior of politicians and climate scientists is at odds with the problem they are trying to solve. Power and control is the consistent answer describing what they are doing.

        map

        June 9, 2017 at 10:16 am

    • And why should we believe that this is a real archived article from 1912? And, if true, on what basis would the people at the time have to draw that conclusion?

      map

      June 9, 2017 at 10:09 am

  30. Lion,

    Modern environmentalism is nothing more, nothing less than neo-paganism. 10,000 years ago we worshipped the rocks, and the animals and the plants — pray tell, what do environmentalists do today?

    One doesn’t have to worry about “climate change” because “climate change” causing rising seas is simply the Flood Myth recast — almost every religion and belief system has some version of the Flood Myth — for Judeo-Christians, it was Noah and the Ark, for modern neo-pagans, it is rising sea levels.

    Same exact message: Wicked man has sinned. A flood will come to punish him, cleanse the land by sweeping him and his sins away. Repent now!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

    Same goes for Atlantis being drowned in the seas, and many others

    https://aeon.co/essays/indigenous-myths-carry-warning-signals-about-natural-disasters

    This myth (and others) are probably encoded in our DNA somewhere —

    Regardless, your instincts are right — enviros reject organized traditional religion, yet invent a new, more primitive one in its stead.

    Noah and his Deluge

    June 11, 2017 at 10:54 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: