shopify analytics tool

from crux № 12 — climate change

One of the best things that anyone can do to "fight CO2" is planting a few trees.

Growing a garden on your balcony or in your backyard works too.



Speaking as someone who does have an Earth-centered religion, one thing that makes me angriest at the climate change alarmists is that they insist all other problems like pollution, water shortages, and cookie-cutter mass produced architecture must take a back seat to dealing with climate change.

Or maybe even the next car



I know I'm painting a target on myself.

I have two major issues with climate change activists.

First, the models haven't successfully predicted anything. If they were accurate, I should be able to take weather readings from the last ten or twenty years, feed them into the models and successfully predict climate trends for the next year. That hasn't happened.

Second, the climate change "movement" has co-opted and subverted the environmental movement to the point where "dealing" with climate change takes ultimate priority over any environmental concern you can name. Overuse of water in the Western US? Climate change. Dangerous industrial emissions in Mississippi? Deal with the greenhouse gases first. Urban raccoon population explosion worldwide? Those poor polar bears and the shrinking ice!

There's another issue that I don't talk about much, but which we should think about. "Climate change" is losing it's credibility with the public, and it's dragging the environmental movement down with it.



If the volcanos were a new event yes. Since volcanos have been erupting nearly since the Earth began, they should already be part of the models.

The decade of data is only marginally worse than the century or so of human influence that is usually cited. And it's much better than the predictions of human activity that are usually fed in to show that we have only x number of years left before it's "too late."

I'd still like to see a baseline of 10,000 years or so.



I'm not disputing that there are serious environmental issues. My second point was that "climate change" activists have taken control of all efforts against ALL environmental problems. That has happened so much that we're not even allowed to discuss those other issues unless we first acknowledge climate change and give our efforts there first.

What's more, there are young adults today who literally do not know anything else.

That is scary.



Now we get into the politics. I would encourage people to look for themselves. One of the touchstones of the political side of the "climate change" activist groups has been "thou shalt not dissent."

Granted, I'm not a scientist, but I've never seen any science where people aren't allowed to question the "consensus." And I have to admit that the first thing that ran through my head when I read about that "consensus" is the old advert line "4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentene for their patients who chew gum."

I am not questioning climatology. I am questioning the models that climate change activists use to justify their agenda. Those are two very different things, and trusting one should not mean trusting the other, even if they use the same language.



I did not mention the data on purpose, although there is a lot to dispute. I'd rather not get into that sticky mess here just because much of the data can't be independently verified.

I specifically mentioned the models which have been (incorrectly) used to predict what will happen in ten, twenty, or thirty years.

If the models were accurate, they could predict trends with just a decade or so of data. Just like some of the gloomsayers do. But the models aren't accurate, and neither are the predictions. The problem is not the temperature, it's in the carbon dioxide "cascade" effect.

I could have a spreadsheet that says if I deposit 23 cents today, I could have $73,000 dollars by the end of next week. The math could be perfectly valid, but unless the assumptions reflect reality, I won't have anything more than 23 cents.



Pardon, but what we have is selected baseline data with massive interpretations and extrapolations. We are reasonably sure it's accurate. And I'll agree with that as long as it is the raw data we're talking about, and not the heavily "edited" versions put out by certain scientists.

But data does not equal models, Somebody has to make the spreadsheet.

We don't have accurate models.



Absolutely you shouldn't trust what I say just because I say it. To you I'm just words on a webpage. But you shouldn't trust the scientists just because they are scientists. If they stand to profit with money, power, or prestige, they may not be telling the truth.



Offhand, I can't think of one conversation on environmental problems I've had in the last ten years or so where we didn't have to acknowledge climate change as THE paramount problem. If you'll excuse the religious reference, one GOD above all others. And no effort or money could be spent on a singular effort without a cut going to "climate change."

And if you dared to speak out, why, you were the Heretic.



And if we can't question the science, then will we be allowed to question the new regulations, taxes, and fees?



If it weren't for the obvious political power grab, I'd keep my mouth shut and let the scientists bicker among themselves. But this is a very familiar pattern about ruling people, even if it is cloaked in the trappings of science.

"Thou shalt not dissent."



Up until now, I've not touched on this.

There is a huge difference between the climate models and almost every other model you can name.

There are people who are using the climate models to justify seizing insane amounts of power funded by an ever increasing revenue stream. And they demand that the models be treated as if "the science is settled." That doesn't usually happen in science.

I'd rather not throw out accusations, but this stinks of a political coup.

The models don't work well, BUT we're not supposed to question them, and by the way, we're supposed to give up freedom and cash to solve a problem which may or may not exist, may or may not be a problem, may or may not be self-correcting, and which we may or may not actually be able to do anything about. That's a lot of may or may nots for something that is "definitive."

Meanwhile, there are people who have made a lot of money capitalizing on the climate scare, all while claiming to act in the "greater good."



If it were only about the science, I wouldn't be saying anything. But the shoddy science is being used to justify the politics, and the politics are enormous.

And since the rule is "thou shalt not dissent," there's an active movement to discredit any scientist who disagrees from the nutcases to the highly respected ones.

Like all political movements (and some religions), a standard tactic is to point at the most extreme nutcases and claim that they are the norm.

How many times have neopagans been subject to the exact same tactics?



And if it weren't for the power and money at stake, it could play out exactly as most other science does.

I know I'm asking a lot. But just for a moment, assume that there is something to my rants here.

Who profits from a global climate scare? And how much?



1. You mean other than the UNFCCC itself? I would also at minimum add the EPA to that.

2. There is of course the "climate gap." It's up to what, 17 years now? I agree, climate models shouldn't be held to a year-by-year standard. Except that is exactly what most climate change activists did before the "gap." There's also the bit about increasing temperature on Mars.

3. There is not an action we can take that will not have consequences and especially unintended consequences. Before we intervene in the climate, it would be nice if we knew what was the "right" temperature and humidity range. Can you tell me? I don't know it, and I'd be very suspicious of anyone who said they did know it.

A. Before you are so willing to give up freedom, remember the EPA now regulates carbon dioxide emissions. As in the stuff you breathe out. There's also the bit about how the Copenhagen treaty tried to do away with free markets, which is probably a big reason why it failed.

B. I'm not a big supporter of an active foreign policy. I'd argue that Iraq was a special case before they screwed it up along about Year 3, but that is a completely different argument.

On the whole, I do not think government can be trusted to do the "right thing" and I think massive amounts of cash and power exaggerate that problem. One of the big reasons is the Somebody's Else's Problem Effect (named in honor of the late Douglas Adams). If it's government's "job," then most people will not only ignore the issue but will expect government to bail them out no matter what happens. They won't take responsibility, even if it's in their back yard.

C. Can you tell me what the temperature "should" be? The fact that we don't know, and don't know if it's a bad or good change, or even how big the change might or might not be, and if it is self-regulating or not should give people pause. We don't understand the climate or the weather. And yet we want to mess with the settings, assuming we could figure out how and what the settings were.

D. I'll tell you what I tell some of the more enthusiastic Christians I encounter who want to put prayer in public schools (or twenty other hot points). If you can't convince someone without the force of law backing you up, you're doing it wrong. Regulating someone for "their own good" hardly ever works.



Ah, there lies a tale. Again, the question is why must the scientists who dissent be discredited?

Freedom is always at risk when you talk taxes, law, and regulation. Especially if it's "for your own good."



*sigh*

Pardon, but it did happen. And it's still happening. I think the most important question here is why?



Please don't assume that I support big oil or even small oil.

One of the ideas I like toying with is refrigerator sized self-contained sealed nuclear reactors. Now hear me out for just a moment. Imagine one of these reactors linked to a flywheel and put on a semi-truck. The reactor would put out a constant output, most of the excess would be stored in the flywheel. At night, they'd pull into a truck stop that would pay them for the extra electricity. The truck stop would turn around and sell the electricity back to the power grid.

Now imagine an emergency, flood, earthquake, whatever. You park a few of these semi-trucks around and you have a constant stable source of power.

Just something I like to think about sometimes.



There's a line I love to tell Christians about Julian. By their own standards, Julian was literally a saint, just not for Christianity. Politics strikes again.

I know you've written about libertarianism. I've read some of your essays. I disagree with them, but yes, I've read them. Your name is one reason why I decided to come back to this thread.

I'm not a saint, I never claimed to be. But certain of the most active of the climate change scientists are not doing it for the greater good of humanity even as they cash in on the good feelings. All through this thread I've never praised the climate dissenters, I've just disagreed with the prevailing model and asked why dissenting scientists must be discredited. I never mentioned the Tea Party, Fox News, or the more conservative critics here. I've never used that as a justification. Aside from some bits about freedom, I haven't cited libertarianism on this thread.

If the sole reason not to consider dissent because it is dissent, well, that says more about the prevailing dogma than the dissenters.

I see it as another manifestation of Power With versus Power Over. As I said above, if you can't convince someone without the force of law backing you up, you're doing it wrong.



Technically the first Earth Day was March 21, 1970. The day got co-opted and there was another a month later.

As a genuine tree hugging pagan, I prefer the equinox. But my idea of what Earth Day should be does not match the current "progressive" version.

Planting trees is A GOOD THING. And it does more to make carbon dioxide useful than any six committee meetings discussing how to save the planet.

http://www.arborday.org

I started keeping my crux files because I noticed I kept getting into the same discussions in comment threads on other people’s web sites. After a while it just made sense for me to organize my thoughts by topic. These are snippets. It’s not in any particular order, it’s just discussions I have again and again.
Comments

Science doesn't work on consensus

Science doesn't work on consensus. The law of gravity didn't require a majority vote of the High Council of Scientists before working. It described a behavior which could be replicated and measured.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

NeoNotes — Conversation - updated

“Climate is changing Because it's HUMANITY'S FAULT and WE'RE SCREWING UP THE PLANET!!!!!"

Read More...
Comments
2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       2005