Frontline - "Climate of Doubt" PBS 10/23/2012

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Oh, but since we can not predict as of this very second and with 100% certainty the path of Apophis 99942 39 years from now . . . all Newtonian calculations must be tossed out because clearly they're "not science"!

Damn, this "not science" stuff sure is silly. I mean, it's not like it's the end of the world though.

You're going reduction ad absurdum. I've already told you what I think of predictions. Prediction - the universe will end as a very very cold, dark, empty place. I'm pretty certain of it. Why? Because of thermodynamics. It's the law. Three, actually. first law - you can't win. Second law - you can't break even. Third law - you can't get out of the game.

Prediction? In the long term - we're fucked. Until an exception to the laws of thermodynamics is found, it's rather simple.

Now add climate. Long term forecast? We're fucked. The laws of thermodynamics tell us this. Near term? Well, that's a lot more complicated.

We cannot predict with certainty apophis' orbit. Because we can't yet measure it precisely enough. We have probabilities. I have a prediction: Apophis may go through a gravitational keyhole resulting in a pretty rough Friday the 13th. We have probabilities, and even with something as SIMPLE as Newtonian physics - we aren't sure.

And you are saying that we are more certain of climate in 100 years than we are about the orbit or an asteroid? I say we are far more certain about Apophis - and we aren't 100% certain of that.

That's why there are "real climate scientists" and then there's everyone else. Climate science is extremely complicated.

Right, and some 98% of real climate scientists are in agreement that the climate is changing and human activity is a major driver of that change.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm in agreement with it.

That's not where the disagreement ins

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh, but since we can not predict as of this very second and with 100% certainty the path of Apophis 99942 39 years from now . . . all Newtonian calculations must be tossed out because clearly they're "not science"!

Damn, this "not science" stuff sure is silly. I mean, it's not like it's the end of the world though.

You're going reduction ad absurdum. I've already told you what I think of predictions. Prediction - the universe will end as a very very cold, dark, empty place. I'm pretty certain of it. Why? Because of thermodynamics. It's the law. Three, actually. first law - you can't win. Second law - you can't break even. Third law - you can't get out of the game.

Prediction? In the long term - we're fucked. Until an exception to the laws of thermodynamics is found, it's rather simple.

Now add climate. Long term forecast? We're fucked. The laws of thermodynamics tell us this. Near term? Well, that's a lot more complicated.

We cannot predict with certainty apophis' orbit. Because we can't yet measure it precisely enough. We have probabilities. I have a prediction: Apophis may go through a gravitational keyhole resulting in a pretty rough Friday the 13th. We have probabilities, and even with something as SIMPLE as Newtonian physics - we aren't sure.

And you are saying that we are more certain of climate in 100 years than we are about the orbit or an asteroid? I say we are far more certain about Apophis - and we aren't 100% certain of that.

That's why there are "real climate scientists" and then there's everyone else. Climate science is extremely complicated.

Right, and some 98% of real climate scientists are in agreement that the climate is changing and human activity is a major driver of that change.

Yes, and the disagreement is how much of a problem this is to us as a society or a species, and how much of an economic suicide are we ready to undertake in order to combat the situation, or can we just 'live' with it.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Physics is involved, it's not "just math".

Climate models are "just math" following your logic. Lots of numbers crunched in a computer.

Physics. Chemistry. Oceanography. Geology. Statistics. It’s all involved.

And all described by mathematics, isn’t it?

don't get Physicists going on about Math PhDs. it's just funny stuff - only a cage match will decide that conflict.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[dmcoco84 5]

Your cowardice is no longer a surprise, Quade, its become expected.

You are not an honest broker of information.

You are not a seeker of the Truth.

You are a Coward.



No conspiracy ... Progressives ... in their own words.

An ode to the Little Red Book... The Little Blue Book.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Blue-Book-ebook/dp/B007WT31BM

“George Lakoff is the progressive movement's Jedi master of language. The Little Blue Book tells us how to say what we need to say to bring about the policy changes Americans need.” - Van Jones

"Language"... like changing your name from Progressive to Liberal and then back to Progressive.

"the policy changes Americans need." Yeah...

Edit: sp

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Physics is involved, it's not "just math".

Climate models are "just math" following your logic. Lots of numbers crunched in a computer.

Physics. Chemistry. Oceanography. Geology. Statistics. It’s all involved.

And all described by mathematics, isn’t it?

don't get Physicists going on about Math PhDs. it's just funny stuff - only a cage match will decide that conflict.

My late wife was a math PhD. We got on very well.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Quote

You are a Coward.

"Brave" words from an anonymous user with a conspiracy theory.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There absolutely is consensus in the scientific community about climate change

Judith Curry (probably my favorite climate blogger) published this.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/#more-10322

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Have you watched the program in the subject line of this thread yet?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

First five minutes. But been working...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[loumeinhart 0]

you're not a coward. You fought like a man while lawrocket took you apart

[quade 4]

Quote

you're not a coward. You fought like a man while lawrocket took you apart

Lawrocket doesn't even know what he's talking about because he won't take the time to look at the evidence of what the subject of this thread is.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

you're not a coward. You fought like a man while lawrocket took you apart

Lawrocket doesn't even know what he's talking about because he won't take the time to look at the evidence of what the subject of this thread is.

... and he still took you apart

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Lawrocket doesn't even know what he's talking about because he won't take the time to look at the evidence of what the subject of this thread is.

Truth on this? I started watching it - I searched for it on the roku unit and found it on Amazon. Then a certain Jersey Girl to whom I'm married demanded that we watch something different. I believe I took the smart path.

Trust me - catching this from you is far easier than what I'd deal with had I watched it. Please do not attribute some ulterior motive. I had a damned good reason to stop watching it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

For night, I could buy your excuse.

But how long have this been available now?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

But how long have this been available now?

I think it aired a week ago. And quite truthfully, there's been plenty of other stuff going on. I've been following the storm much more over the past few days. I can read a news story here at work but cannot exactly stream Frontline (I also have no sound on this work computer).

I understand that you think this is important. I'm not bullshitting you by saying that you do not think it is important. I said I will watch it. I will. But in the list of priorities right now "Climate of Doubt" ranks below three trials for which I'm prepping. And DFWAJG and I have been pretty interested in Breaking Bad lately.

I told you I will watch it. I will. Maybe today. Maybe this weekend. I will comment on the show at that time. But the topic of the show? I have no problem commenting on the topic. Nor do I have an issue posting related subject matter.

What do you think of judith Curry's article?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

The issue is, you -can't- comment on the issue of the topic because you haven't watched the program. I'm not saying that because I think your views on global climate change are ridiculous. I'm saying it because your views aren't what the program is about and the ONLY way you'll understand that is by watching the program rather than spewing venom about things it isn't.

Some of the folks here I've essentially given up on because they truly do not have any sort of analytical mind and wouldn't know an interesting argument if they saw one; they'd simply cover their ears and regurgitate something they'd been brainwashed with.

I didn't think you were one of them -- ever.

We disagree on several topics, but you generally seem willing to at least look at what is being presented first.

Until this.

And now I'm simply baffled by it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

What do you think of judith Curry's article?

Interesting, but completely irrelevant to the subject line of this thread.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

I'm explaining why I haven't watched it. Ask my wife - I started watching it and she wanted something else.

Quote

but you generally seem willing to at least look at what is being presented first.

I am willing. I’ve reviewed the transcript. Is this middle ground acceptable? No, I don’t have imagery or tone, just the words transcribed. I like it more, anyway.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/transcript-31/

Notes:

It starts off with some discussion of CEI.

Then it moves to the Cap and Trade legislation in 2009. “Skeptics had found a seat at the table.” It passed the House but Senate recessed and faced an earful, due in no small part to the actions of groups like Americans for Prosperity stirring up the tea-party types. This led to the failure of Cap and Trade. Reason? The effort is aimed at limiting government influence. The argument of the skeptics is that this expansion is fueled by pseudoscience.

Quote

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [on camera] You’ve said, “If we win the science argument, I think it’s game set and match.”
TIM PHILLIPS: Uh-huh.
JOHN HOCKENBERRY: Why do you want to win the science argument?
TIM PHILLIPS: If the science argument is won, I do think it would, you know, pull out the final underpinning of this legislative effort and this regulatory effort the left is undertaking.
JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [voice-over] Diminish the credibility of the scientific consensus, and action on climate change grinds to a halt…

(lawrocket editorial – Right now I’m viewing this program as a political science lesson. It’s using Climate Science as an example of how the American legislative process works. This is interesting and yes, Paul, it’s thus far not about what I thought it was about.)

Now they go to the other side. One of my favorites – Gavin Schmidt – being listed. They then accuse of cherry picking the data. They bring in Cicerone, too. “Scientists are trying to shoot [AGW] down all the time, and in years and years and years, nobody’s been able to. So at some point, you have to say maybe it’s right.” (comment – they discount all evidence against it as “we expected this and doesn’t disprove it).

Then this:

Quote

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: And if most of the climate scientists believe that statement, they’re deluded?
FRED SINGER: Yes.

Singer looks bad here. I don’t like anybody sounding all messianic. I don’t think climate scientists are deluded. I think they have biases.

Now Hockenberry gets judgmental about the skeptics:

Quote

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [voice-over] It’s a time-honored tactic by the skeptics, authentic-looking documents and reports that don’t stand up to independent scrutiny.

I don’t like this because all sides do it.

Then The next subject is the Anglia/CRU hack. Both sides were wacky on it. The skeptics should have simply shown the “scientists” to not be the noble lab coats in objective quest for truth. They had an agenda and acted like a clique of children. Likewise, the climate scientists involved – and those who were not implicated – should have worn it and admitted they were infantile.

Then they quoted Dr. Hayhoe who was shocked to receive a FOIA request. And then Dessler. I don’t know what the tone was, but it seemed to be stated as they are being bullied. To Dessler’s credit, he said, “I’ll just deal with that.” (lawrocket comment: FOIA is used when government grants exist).

Then back to the right-wing rallies. Quoting Tim Phillips: “It doesn’t to the scientific side. It very much so relates to the policies that the left pushes in the name of global warming.” (lawrocket commentary – this actually is, from my perception, what the whole debate is about. Phillips restates a fundamental point of mine: “Science” is being used as a policy adjunct. “Climate scientists say that to avoid disaster we need to divert $40 trillion over the next twenty years to clean energy.” That kind of thing. The attacks on climate science are attacks on the foundations of the policy arguments, i.e., “your arguments are only as valid as the underlying conclusions. We don’t think they are valid.”

The story goes again to the political climate. The politicians and bureaucrats refuse to speak their minds about it because of the political issues that it will cause.

They talked to Coral Davenport:

Quote

CORAL DAVENPORT: I came up with the idea to ask every Republican member of Congress three simple questions about climate change. They were very simple. They were basically, you know, “Do you think that climate change is causing the earth to become warmer?”
JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [on camera] Straightforward.
CORAL DAVENPORT: “How much, if any of that, do you think is attributable to human activity?” And “What’s the appropriate government response?...”

My thinking is that from a political perspective, questions 1 and 2 are irrelevant (scientific). It’s Question 3 where the political juice is (not a scientific matter). That politicians refuse to answer any questions is an indication of the inability to differentiate between science and policy in climate change. Davenport also made a very interesting observation: “It’s rare to find a Democrat who will outright flatly question or deny the basic scientific precepts of climate change.” No Democrat will even question it. My issue? Why not? So we see a couple of things. The GOP wanting to silence the issue. And the Democrats perfectly content with not being asked about it, either. We see evidence of this in the presidential debates.

Next, Rep. Sensenbrunner validates what I’ve said all along: “I think that it’s up to the scientists and their supporters to convince the public that this is the right thing to do.” Hell, even the GOP is putting the scientists into the realm of policy advocacy. Seriously – what the fuck?

See? This is what I question. I question why scientists are acting as political policy advocates. Stick to science or stick to policy. It turns out, the politicians don’t want to be a part of this anymore so they are hanging scientists out to dry with it. Of course, the scientists are willingly putting themselves there.

Of course, then Kerry blames “huge sums of money.” Shut the fuck up, Kerry. The same “fear” that your side used is being used against you now. You know the game. It’s not money. It’s message. Inglis is mentioned losing due to his belief in human causation of climate change. Again – mixing politics with science. I believe in causation. I don’t think we should do anything about it right now. Kerry said, “Sen. JOHN KERRY: And there’s nothing like a loss in an election to promote fear in the survivors. And that’s exactly what happened in the United States Congress.” Proving, again, that politicians are in for themselves and not for anyone else.

Now to North Carolina! “: In 2010, 19 scientists on a state commission warned of a possible sea level rise by the end of the century.” Wow. A possible sea level rise by the end of the century. Possible. Possible? Yes. Possible. Science is the pursuit of certainty, isn’t it? Didn’t quade and I go back and forth about predictions and possibilities?

“The bill would limit authorities to considering historical data in their sea level projections. The future could only be based on the past.” Then comes Gavin, a climate modeler.

Quote

The problem is— I mean, North Carolina beachfronts are very close to sea level. You’re very close, and you’re vulnerable because of hurricane effects, because of the storm surges, and you’re vulnerable because of high tides. Those vulnerabilities don’t go away because you just legislate them away.

Did Dr. Schmidt respond AT ALL to the underlying concerns? No. He said, “it’s the beach. It’s vulnerable.” An absolute bullshit response. (I note that Gavin may have given a nice coherent response that editorial control omitted. If that’s the case, hockenberry did a disservice to Dr. Schmidt. But it sure works in a rhetorical sense.)

Then Dr. Riggs said something interesting: “What they’re saying is that we have to include all the naysayers and all the people who say climate change isn’t happening.” Um, yes, Dr. Riggs. They have their interests, too, and that’s what the political process is about. They’ve let it be known they will not be ignored.

Dr. Riggs’ comment, I think, is the essence of why there is such a strong backlash. The naysayers have a voice, too.

Then back to Hockenberry explaining that Exxon went after the science. “A lot of these groups were run by economists, litigators, lawyers and public policy specialists, people who specialized in getting a message out” to shut down new regulations. (Comment: yep. Using politically savvy people in a political decision. It’s not science. It’s politics. Exxon actually understood that).

And then the show spends its last few minutes on the politics.

Impression

This program is about climate – “political climate.” It uses “earth climate” as an example of how politics goes in this country – probably around the world in any democratically based government. (Autocrats don’t need to worry about this stuff).

To me, the entire program was about how the lines between science and politics are non existent. It isn’t a layer cake – with science as the white foundation layer and politics as the upper layer of devil’s food (with a delicious Bavarian crème separating the two). Climate science and politics are a marble cake.

The weird part is that politicians want scientists in on their turf. For political expedience, they put scientists out there to do their bidding. Even the GOP wants to leave it to scientists to advocate. I think it’s perverted.

How’s that, Paul?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

First five minutes. But been working...

From the length and number of posts from you lately, I figured you weren't much doing that.

[lawrocket 3]

I do much from court. Spending three hours sitting on my ass waiting to be called. It's a frequent issue recently.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

It's better that you've at least seen the transcript and have some idea what you're talking about. As you've correctly indicated, it doesn't show tone of the speakers. If you had watched the program you may have noticed an incredible amount of snarky smugness from the folks who have pretty much just admitted they've pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people and believe they've "won" by casting and promoting doubt as opposed to addressing the science.

What confuses me is, didn't they understand what the camera was doing; recording them for posterity?

I hope that piece of digital data lives for a hundred years.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

I often prefer substance over appearance. What’s being said? What is being written?

But we do judge books by their covers. That’s the reason why books have cover images, logos, etc., is to get people to prejudge it and buy it. Of course, a person’s performance is indicative of other things. A person may have quite a message and be unable to deliver it. I’ve seen a brilliant and masterful person who was an oaf when testifying about the subject of his expertise. I’ve also seen smugness. I’ve been put off by people whom others have grasped onto.

But it also depends on your viewpoint. Check out the viewpoints of Biden. He’s a smug and snarky asshole on one side. On the other side, he’s confident and righteously indignant at what is being said by the other guy.

But cut through the impressions and hear or read what he has to say and something else entirely gets revealed. Doesn’t mean I’ll not take a look at it. Tell me what to look for and I’ll see if I can find it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

Quote

You are a Coward.

"Brave" words from an anonymous user with a conspiracy theory.

Blunt words, Quade... not brave.

And you ARE a coward.



Firstly... anonymous user? Seriously?

Not only do I have a picture of myself next to every post, but I am clearly wearing a BASE rig and have a Triax shirt on with the first word being, BASE. Ask around on BASE jumper, or anyone who has gone to Bridge Day since 2007, who Coco is.

MANY, on Dorkzone know me personally as well.

And with how long I have been calling you on your BS history, you know exactly who I am.



Secondly... conspiracy theory?

Ya know what is funny about progressives, Quade, True Progressives. They are pussies and cowards.

Perfect example: Bill Maher.

"Who the fuck is Saul Alinsky?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RtLEPPgbNyM

Yet the NEA had "Rules for Radicals" as recommended reading on their website.
http://notalemming.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/rules-for-radicals1.jpg

COWARD.

You [Maher] know damn well Americans will outright reject what you believe and stand for, so you have to lie about what you ARE. You damn well know who Saul Alinsky is.

COWARD.



Progressivism is not a conspiracy theory... its an Era of Ideas. Ideas that are the antithesis of the Constitution and Limited government. Try reading a few more books, like, Progressivism: A Reader.

"It's all there, Black and White, Clear as Crystal."

YOU LOSE. GOOD DAY, SIR!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKG07305CBs


Edit: Spelling

[quade 4]

Quote

And with how long I have been calling you on your BS history, you know exactly who I am.

You think far too much of yourself. Your thoughts and opinions are about as important as your empty profile, so why should I give a fuck?

Meh. Go live in your fantasy world where I care about you or what you have to say. Fine by me.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver