Contrary Arguments to AGW

[Archaea]

http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Sit...es/Colloquium/
100210Lindzen/index.htm#

http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Sit...es/Colloquium/
100210Lindzen/f.htm

The debate between Lindzen and Emanuel.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/1...to-be-failing/

http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/20...arming-videos/

The quacks who perpetuate the mythos of anthropogenic GW should be ashamed of themselves.

[Archaea]

I love this letter:

KERRY EMANUEL’S Feb. 15 op-ed “Climate changes are proven fact’’ is more advocacy than assessment. Vague terms such as “consistent with,’’ “probably,’’ and “potentially’’ hardly change this. Certainly climate change is real; it occurs all the time. To claim that the little we’ve seen is larger than any change we “have been able to discern’’ for a thousand years is disingenuous. Panels of the National Academy of Sciences and Congress have concluded that the methods used to claim this cannot be used for more than 400 years, if at all. Even the head of the deservedly maligned Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the present.
The claim that everything other than models represents “mere opinion and speculation’’ is also peculiar. Despite their faults, models show that projections of significant warming depend critically on clouds and water vapor, and the physics of these processes can be observationally tested (the normal scientific approach); at this point, the models seem to be failing.
Finally, given a generation of environmental propaganda, a presidential science adviser (John Holdren) who has promoted alarm since the 1970s, and a government that proposes funding levels for climate research about 20 times the levels in 1991, courage seems hardly the appropriate description – at least for scientists supporting such alarm.
Richard S. Lindzen
Cambridge
The writer is Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The problems proponents have is that they really can't dispute him very well. He has credibility, he has the knowledge and he points out the flaws.

Chino Coug, are you in line for some of that grant money?

[Archaea]

a list of scientists that reject "mainstream" arguments on AGW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I love this letter:



The problems proponents have is that they really can't dispute him very well. He has credibility, he has the knowledge and he points out the flaws.

Chino Coug, are you in line for some of that grant money?

Intelligent design people make the same claims about conspiracy (tenure, research grants denied, etc.) as the anti-AGW people to. They debate evolution too and, lo and behold, they have a petition of 1,0000 scientists supporting their cause!

But that's not my point. My point is on value, not validity. Are you familiar with probability theory?

Probability (evolution is valid) = 99%
Costs of ignoring evolution if valid = 0

Expected Cost of ignoring evolution if valid = 0.99*0 = 0

Probability (AGW is valid) = 50% (I'll be generous and assume 90% of climatologists may be wrong)
Costs of ignoring AGW if valid = 6 trillion lives + $54.62 trillion in world GDP

Expected Cost of ignoring AGW if valid: 0.50*(6 trillion lives + $54.62 trillion) = 3 trillion lives + $27.31 trillion

IOW, if you have time to beat the drum on Mormon scientific ignorance, do it on something more urgent.

[MikeWaters]

Chances climate change will differ based on political interventions = 0%.

Good luck with that.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Intelligent design people make the same claims about conspiracy (tenure, research grants denied, etc.) as the anti-AGW people to. They debate evolution too and, lo and behold, they have a petition of 1,0000 scientists supporting their cause!

But that's not my point. My point is on value, not validity. Are you familiar with probability theory?

Probability (evolution is valid) = 99%
Costs of ignoring evolution if valid = 0

Expected Cost of ignoring evolution if valid = 0.99*0 = 0

Probability (AGW is valid) = 50% (I'll be generous and assume 90% of climatologists may be wrong)
Costs of ignoring AGW if valid = 6 trillion lives + $54.62 trillion in world GDP

Expected Cost of ignoring AGW if valid: 0.50*(6 trillion lives + $54.62 trillion) = 3 trillion lives + $27.31 trillion

IOW, if you have time to beat the drum on Mormon scientific ignorance, do it on something more urgent.

You're equating Lindzen-Choi and others with intelligent design folks? Last I checked MIT stars weren't among those with involved in intelligent design.

I don't think you have any credibility if you make that comparison.

And then you pull probabilities out of a hat.

Your argument is this, even if the possibility that the AGWists are wrong but their thesis is so catastrophic we must throw money at it because the consequences are dire.

Again equating legitimate scientists with intelligent design supporters is downright silly.

However, the consequences are this:

Nothing is immediate, not even by the most dire predictions of AGWists. And we're in dire economic times.

And the AGWists want us to spend money when we don't have any? Two possibilities, the proponents of the "solution" intend to get some, or they actually believe it "might" lead to a solution. In analyzing human politics, I find it less probable that an actual solution is being proposed but rather a solution for certain segments to milk money out of the system. That's really what's happening. And you know that.

Very clever.

But as Mike point out.

First, what is the probability that the AGWists have diagnosed a problem. I'd say about 0 percent.

Second, what is the probability that the AGWists have a cure. Absolutely not.

Your simplistic approach ignored the analysis.

As a conversation piece, it helps to understand the basic premises. Tell me you understood the entirety of the argument under Lindzen-Choi, as there are pieces outside of my area of expertise.

The "we gotta do something" approach reminds me of the guy stuck in quick sand, who therefore thrashes around until he sicks into the deep. Of course, having no experience with quick sand, I might suppose this is folklore but the analogy holds for AGW folklorists.