Is Climate 'Activism' Becoming a Cult?

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

we need to rapidly decarbonise to avoid potentially disasterous consequence

What do you propose?

Akrasia

Just for the laugh, Here's a link to Realclimate (a blog run by actual climate scientists of good standing in their community) where IPCC scientist Peter Thorne reviews an article from retired UCD Meteorologist Prof Ray Bates (one of inspirational figures in the climate skeptic movement in Ireland).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/12/bending-low-with-bated-breath/

Bates manages to sustain his world view through systemic misunderstanding of the latest published science

Its not that he's not intelligent, or that he's not thinking critically, It's that he has clearly formed an opinion and is no longer looking to have that opinion challenged. Instead, he scans research and the literature (including non academic writings of people with who he agrees with) looking for anything that he can use to confirm his existing belief.

This results in him taking data completely out of context, misidentifying graphs and charts, and mis characterising the current state of the research

Ray Bates thinks Equlibrium Climate sensitivity is 1 degree Celsius. This means that he thinks that the planet will eventually warm up by 1c if we double the concentration of greenhouse gasses from the pre industrial baseline

The problem is, as of now, at a time when the sun is in a solar minimum or close to it, we are already at about 1.1c above this level, and we're not even close to doubling CO2 yet, and we've already beaten his ECS, and this doesn't even account for the fact that it takes time for the heat potential of the current CO2 concentrations to fully impact the climate (even if we kept CO2 at the current level that it is today, we will still see temperatures continue to increase for decades as the climate reaches it's new equilibrium state

The other paper he likes for it’s climate sensitivity work is his own somewhat obscure effort (Bates, 2016), which argues for an ECS near 1K, despite the clear evidence that the planet has already warmed up by that, with a net forcing substantially less than 2xCO2, and with an ongoing energy imbalance (as evidenced by observed increases in Ocean Heat Content). This, to be gentle, is pretty much impossible.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/12/bending-low-with-bated-breath

Someone like Ray Bates has made a prediction which, by nothing more than the passage of time, is already completely disproven, yet still refuses to adjust his theories to account for the evidence, and because he used to be a reputable scientist, others accept his analysis as truth even when it's blatantly obvious that he was wrong.

Bates actually amended his original article to cover up some of the obvious errors as pointed out by Peter Thorne, but he did so to paper over the cracks, amazingly, despite the basis of his arguments being shown to be false, he still finished with the same conclusion.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

What do you propose?

This is a problem driven by economics, it can be solved by economics. Polluting energy was cheaper than clean energy, the remedy is to charge polluters for the costs of the pollution, this forces polluters to innovate to survive, so they either improve their technology, or they abandon it and help make clean energy more economically competitive

People think carbon taxes are taxes on citizens, they're actually taxes on products. If polluting products are expensive, it makes less polluting products more competitive and the sellers of polluting products can compete by either funding political lobbiests to try to change the laws (hence all the climate change deniers) or they can become less polluting to legitimately avoid the tax.

Eventually, as we are beginning to see, economies of scale and the benefits of investment and research will make renewable energy cost competitive and it will drive organic growth of renewals, and organic decline of fossil fuels.

If you don't agree with my solution, why? are you are a filthy communist?

Longing

Akrasia

Tony Heller is not a credible source. He can't even decide what his own name is.

And I'm not being a snob or anything, he has a track record of blatantly faking graphs

How often does someone get to falsify evidence before they can be dismissed as a fraud?

Oneiric 3

MJohnston wrote: »

Sigh....now this forum too? Is there no escape from Trump-level thinking anywhere?

Oh no, not you too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqqwTgk8ri0

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Well it was a direct response to someone accusing scientists of hiding behind a 16 year old girl

They're not hiding, they're either presenting at the climate change conference, or they're engaged in active research, or they're involved in releasing reports like the latest IPCC report from this week which is further evidence that we need to rapidly decarbonise to avoid potentially disasterous consequence

They are hiding and directing people to read their 'papers' does not answer the question as to where these scientists are. Do they stand behind the protests? Are they concerned that fear of a 'climate apocalypse' is becoming a very real thing in the minds of children because of their 'work'? Guess we'll never know...

Longing

Akrasia wrote: »

Tony Heller is not a credible source. He can't even decide what his own name is.

And I'm not being a snob or anything, he has a track record of blatantly faking graphs

How often does someone get to falsify evidence before they can be dismissed as a fraud?

Graphs are fine. Problem is the ones Nasa and Noaa have altered over time.

As you are talking about name changing . Lets see Ozone in the 90's to Globing warming to Climate Change now you can't go wrong with the last name change. Climate is always changing history shows us that.

Akrasia

One more interesting little trick that you will see from climate change 'skeptics'

They will show you a graph showing the average temperature from all the US weather stations over time.

This graph will show that the average temperatures haven't changed much.

What the graph doesn't show you is that the geographic distribution of the average climate station has changed. They have drifted north. As the US climate monitoring agencies have been trying to achieve higher resolution, they have been putting in more climate stations in the sparcely populated northern and midland regions of the USA. In the northern hemisphere, the further north you go, the colder it gets, so the 'skeptics' can find a single dataset that shows USA 'average temperatures' are declining or static, when in reality, it's just an artifact of the expanding monitoring network

Akrasia

Longing wrote: »

Graphs are fine. Problem is the ones Nasa and Noaa have altered over time.

As you are talking about name changing . Lets see Ozone in the 90's to Globing warming to Climate Change now you can't go wrong with the last name change. Climate is always changing history so shows that.

Your post makes so little sense that its not worth responding to

All graphs alter over time. That's what graphs are. They show trends.

Datasets need to be calibrated. This is true for all data. If you fail to account for known errors, your results will drift out of sync with reality.

Your mobile phone's GPS requires that the clocks are constantly adjusted to account for the effects of relativity. If they didn't alter these data, your location services would get progressively less accurate until it became unusable

Longing

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Have no idea who this 'Monckton' lad y'all are on about is, but allow me to join in with you a technocratic sponsored, corporate media approved '2 minutes of hate' session towards him. Grrrrr..



Let us destroy the few.
For we are the many.

If you don't know who Monckton is, I'll be delighted to educate you

Peter Hadfield is a Journalist who happens to have a youtube channel that exposes Christopher Monckton in excruciating yet quite entertaining and informative detail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM&list=PL21601B57A0ED5500

Akrasia

[/QUOTE]

Famed climate scientist Tucker Carlson?

You have 40 posts to your name who appeared out of nowhere to post on a climate change topic, you're either a regular Boards.ie poster who's too embarassed to post this nonsense under their regular name, or you're some kind of a troll.

Longing

Akrasia wrote: »

Your post makes so little sense that its not worth responding to

All graphs alter over time. That's what graphs are. They show trends.

Datasets need to be calibrated. This is true for all data. If you fail to account for known errors, your results will drift out of sync with reality.

Your mobile phone's GPS requires that the clocks are constantly adjusted to account for the effects of relativity. If they didn't alter these data, your location services would get progressively less accurate until it became unusable

Then Don't respond. You come up with wash up propaganda I have to laugh. Graphs alter over time. Thats says it all right there. I have graphs from 40 years ago and the have not changed.

Longing

Akrasia wrote: »

Famed climate scientist Tucker Carlson?

You have 40 posts to your name who appeared out of nowhere to post on a climate change topic, you're either a regular Boards.ie poster who's too embarassed to post this nonsense under their regular name, or you're some kind of a troll.[/QUOTE]

Neither you love to attack people who disagree with you Akrasia

Because I have only 40 posts that means I'm a nobody please shut up. That's how i took that.

Futhermore Akrasia you have attack me personally in your last post.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a problem driven by economics, it can be solved by economics. Polluting energy was cheaper than clean energy, the remedy is to charge polluters for the costs of the pollution, this forces polluters to innovate to survive, so they either improve their technology, or they abandon it and help make clean energy more economically competitive

How is the shelf-stacker in your local supermarket who commutes 20 miles a day earning €9.80ph going to do this? Keep in mind that 1 in 10 of the workforce population are on €9.80ph.

Akrasia wrote: »

People think carbon taxes are taxes on citizens, they're actually taxes on products. If polluting products are expensive, it makes less polluting products more competitive and the sellers of polluting products can compete by either funding political lobbiests to try to change the laws (hence all the climate change deniers) or they can become less polluting to legitimately avoid the tax.

Wrong. Carbon taxes are a tax on energy from fossil fuels, (also - don't forget there is a hidden tax on energy from renewables too in the form of the PSO levy and VAT) As people have *no choice* but to consume energy that involves fossil fuel sources and the fact that manufacturers pass on the cost to the consumers it is a tax on citizens by the back door.

If your analogy was correct, every 0% alcohol beer in a pub would be cheaper than a pint owing to no excise duty on 0%. There are virtually no pubs selling 0% beer for cheaper than a pint on a ml v ml basis. In fact a 568ml pint is still cheaper than a 330ml 0%. Same in Off-Licences in case you want to throw in a greedy publican angle.

Akrasia wrote: »

Eventually, as we are beginning to see, economies of scale and the benefits of investment and research will make renewable energy cost competitive and it will drive organic growth of renewals, and organic decline of fossil fuels.

There is a long way to go, and as I said earlier all carbon taxes should fund the research into alternatives. But as the dogs on the street know, the carbon taxes raised in the last ten years have been squandered. Much of the investment in green tech has come from the private sector where those profits to invest incidentally came off the back cheap polluting fuel were made!

Akrasia wrote: »

If you don't agree with my solution, why? are you are a filthy communist?

Erm, seriously - your solutions are not too far removed from communism!

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

They are hiding and directing people to read their 'papers' does not answer the question as to where these scientists are. Do they stand behind the protests? Are they concerned that fear of a 'climate apocalypse' is becoming a very real thing in the minds of children because of their 'work'? Guess we'll never know...

The answer to your very strangely worded question is that 'scientists' are not all one homogeneous person

Scientists have their own thoughts and feelings about political events like protests or how to approach tackling climate change. The consensus is that we need to reduce the concentration of GHGs in our atmosphere and Oceans.

Lots of scientists are speaking out
Lots of scientists are staying out of politics altogether

Whenever groups of scientists get together, via bodies like National Acadamies of Science or their equivilents, they always endorse the climate consensus. This is not because they're corrupt, it's because the evidence cannot be denied when you're talking to experts who can instantly recognise the bullsh1t arguments that can easily convince lay people who think they're cleverer than experts.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

All graphs alter over time. That's what graphs are. They show trends.

Datasets need to be calibrated. This is true for all data. If you fail to account for known errors, your results will drift out of sync with reality.

Either a temperature hit 10.2c on an April afternoon in 1942 or it didn't. There is no need to "homogenise" or "calibrate" that data.

Temperature is temperature, it's not a feckin Volkswagen emission test.

Meteorite58

Mod Note: Forum Charter must be adhered to. Need to quit the personal attacks.


Here are a few points to keep in mind while posting on this forum:

1. Please refrain from direct personal attacks on any person whether they are members of boards.ie or not.

2. Everyone is entitled to post and has equal rights whether they are weather experts or complete newbies.

3. If you wish you to challenge someone's views (on the topic of weather) then please question the post, do not just attack poster.

4. Stay on topic.

Akrasia

Longing wrote: »

Then Don't respond. You come up with wash up propaganda I have to laugh. Graphs alter over time. Thats says it all right there. I have graphs from 40 years ago and the have not changed.

Graphs always show change over time

thats what graphs are
old graphs use older data
newer graphs should use newer data

so you've identified a global scientific conspiracy to use the best available data


I suppose you win?

Longing

Akrasia wrote: »

Graphs always show change over time

thats what graphs are
old graphs use older data
newer graphs should use newer data

so you've identified a global scientific conspiracy to use the best available data


I suppose you win?

A thanks Akrasia you are very kind. Looking forward to the cheque in post;)

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Either a temperature hit 10.2c on an April afternoon in 1942 or it didn't. There is no need to "homogenise" or "calibrate" that data.

Temperature is temperature, it's not a feckin Volkswagen emission test.

ok, but what about when instruments or local conditions change?

If you had a data series from an instrument that has been shown to read (for example) 1c lower than then the instrument or station that replaced it, you have to calibrate the data to bring the two datasets into agreement.

Think about it. lets say you buy two thermometers and you put them beside each other. If one of them reads 18.5c and the one beside it reads 20.5c
It's clearly the instrument that causes the difference, not that the air suddenly warms where it's being measured.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

What the graph doesn't show you is that the geographic distribution of the average climate station has changed. They have drifted north. As the US climate monitoring agencies have been trying to achieve higher resolution, they have been putting in more climate stations in the sparcely populated northern and midland regions of the USA. In the northern hemisphere, the further north you go, the colder it gets, so the 'skeptics' can find a single dataset that shows USA 'average temperatures' are declining or static, when in reality, it's just an artifact of the expanding monitoring network

Seriously, are there no vast sparsely populated southern areas in the US to install stations? What is with the all Americans migrating into the hot deserts of the south? :rolleyes:

Akrasia

Longing wrote: »

A thanks Akrasia you are very kind. Looking forward to the cheque in post;)

No problem. I'll date the cheque using an algorithm that only pays out the next time the current year is cooler than the rolling 10 year trend.

Longing

Akrasia wrote: »

No problem. I'll date the cheque using an algorithm that only pays out the next time the current year is cooler than the rolling 10 year trend.

Nice one looking forward to it. I will donate it to help the ten thousand homeless in our country. Especially the one's on the streets who die of cold every winter in our little country.:)

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Seriously, are there no vast sparsely populated southern areas in the US to install stations? What is with the all Americans migrating into the hot deserts of the south? :rolleyes:

Using the shape of the US continent on it's own, it's obvious that any attempt to provide more geographical coverage (compared to population coverage) of the USA would by definition cover more land the farther you go north.
but apart from that, here's a population distribution map of the US


Not so much space at the southern Border, loads of space further north, and acres of space in Alaska

If they double the relative number of climate stations in Alaska where it's very cold, compared to Texas (where it's very hot) that could cause the average to dip even if local average temperatures in Alaska are increasing (and they definitely are)

Birdnuts

Akrasia wrote: »

There are some very prominent members of this forum who do not accept the seriousness of Climate change unfortunately.

These would be members that have decent knowledge of past climate change events - climate change is nothing new despite what the doom mongers would have us believe.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

ok, but what about when instruments or local conditions change?

If man-made, then close the station. Just like Birr and Kilkenny.

Akrasia wrote: »

If you had a data series from an instrument that has been shown to read (for example) 1c lower than then the instrument or station that replaced it, you have to calibrate the data to bring the two datasets into agreement.

Regular checking of equipment should rule this out from happening and especially from contaminating a large dataset. You remove the dirty data from the dataset between last calibration and date of fault discovery.

Akrasia wrote: »

Think about it. lets say you buy two thermometers and you put them beside each other. If one of them reads 18.5c and the one beside it reads 20.5c
It's clearly the instrument that causes the difference, not that the air suddenly warms where it's being measured.

You clearly have a faulty thermometer in this instance. Get a RMA as soon as possible, don't wait 50 or 60 years.

Akrasia

Longing wrote: »

Nice one looking forward to it. I will donate it to help the ten thousand homeless in our country. Especially the one's on the streets who die of cold every winter in our little country.:)

Smiley face while talking about homeless people freezing to death??

But anyway. not really on topic.

riffmongous

Danno wrote: »

Either a temperature hit 10.2c on an April afternoon in 1942 or it didn't. There is no need to "homogenise" or "calibrate" that data.

Temperature is temperature, it's not a feckin Volkswagen emission test.

How does a thermometer work? Are all thermometers the same? How does the accuracy and precision change across the various types, and according to time? Earlier you accused me of being condescending to people who apparently don't have the right education, well then, let's see what people do know if they are going to try tell the rest of us how things work