------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

The IPCC is run by scientists.

This Discussion provides an argument to your statement which I agree with

The peer review process works in every other field. Your claims that it is suddenly corrupt when it comes to climate science involves a massive conspiracy...

Correct

Do you have a scientific source about this "altering temperature readings"?

No source needed, he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar Is NASA’s Hansen Playing Enron Accounting Games With Climate Data? Blog Post by Noel Sheppard

The claims were substantiated and the practices unwound...do you still need a scientific acknowledgment?

That's not what the science is telling us, though is it?

So you're kind of wrong there.

I didn't realize that science 'told' us things. When we are warm we have more C02, this has been the case throughout history. When it cools, C02 concentration recede. With Mankind present we may see an anomaly... cooling while C02 is increasing. Would that help your position?

Ah, schizophrenic paranoia again. A worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists, infiltrating the world's journals and academic institutions, including the most respected, and enduring 20 years.

I wonder if you actually believe that.

It's more like a subtle but overwhelming 'Gullivers Travels' type of fraud.

Sorry?

Did the Kyoto suddenly disappear?
Did even the USA's presidential candidates suddenly reverse their climate change policies?
Did the world's scientific organisations suddenly disappear?

I must have missed that.

Kyoto Who?

Oh, Bush? I think it was a trade-off for the Ethanol scam that is now putting the poorest of the worlds poor on track to...um, die from starvation.

Is that a trick question? An answer would be predicated on the understanding of whether credibility constitutes a scientific organizations existence. If you can clear that up for me, I may be able to offer an answer.

~Paradox

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

Smoke and mirrors.

That's not an argument. If you can't show why the content is wrong, then you haven't got an argument, have you?

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

What on earth are you talking about?

If you don't understand it, read it through again.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

"If there's a 0.05 chance that there will be a $100 cost, then the expected cost is $5." I am no game theorist but I would have thought that a 0.05% chance means that 95% will pay nothing and 5% will pay $100. There is no 'expected cost' if you are in the 95 percentile.

Your ignorance here seems to be in your understanding of the term "expected".

From Wiki: In probability theory the expected value (or mathematical expectation, or mean) of a discrete random variable is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome of the experiment multiplied by the outcome value (or payoff).

Does that help?

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

Your argument only works if, in fact, the cost of "GW" is really expected to outweigh the cost of "doing nothing" as you indicated.

Yes.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

I would have thought it was obvious my question "Oh yeah, says who?" was directed at the first part - ie, your statement that the cost of doing nothing would be 20 times that of the current spending (of many tens of billions of dollars).

Originally Posted by Stern Review final report

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts
is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
...

Central estimates of the annual costs of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e are around 1% of global GDP, if we start to take strong action now.
(Stern Review Report)

Originally Posted by Stern Review final report

And as for the house insurance analogy - that is nonsense. People take out house insurance to replace what is likely to be lost.

No, they take it out in case the unlikely happens.

Originally Posted by Stern Review final report

There is no replacing when it comes to GW.

Right. This makes the decision to preserve all the more pertinent.

Originally Posted by Stern Review final report

The question is whether or not the risk of loss is worth paying a lot of money to try to prevent that loss.

Exactly. I though you said the analogy was nonsense, but you seem to be understanding.

Originally Posted by Stern Review final report

The whole 'we do not need proof because the risk of doing nothing is much greater than acting now' argument is nothing short of moral blackmail.

No, it's simple game theory. Take the decision with the least expected cost. Easy. Not blackmail. Not difficult. Sort of a no-brainer really.

Originally Posted by Stern Review final report

Unfortunately it is costing a lot of money which could be spent on actually helping people now.

Completely wrong. It is spending money on helping people now. There are 150,000 people per year dying from global warming now. Money spent reducing emissions is a very cheap way to save lives compared to the money spent on rapid nutrition or digging children out of collapsed schools after an earthquake.

Originally Posted by Stern Review final report

The theory that we are likely to make much of a difference by spending this money sort of loses relevance when China and India are exempt from cutting emissions because of their 'developing' status.

By "we" the whole world is meant.

Originally Posted by Stern Review final report

I have said it before, but here it is again - I am happy to cut emissions and try to reduce using up planetary resources but we don't need to be doing it for reasons of preventing climate change. We are just being greedy and wasteful.

If the cost of reducing emissions is less than the cost of dealing with climate change, then we should reduce emissions rather than deal with climate change.

This is kind of obvious, isn't it?

And we don't need proof, especially, as you point out, there is no replacing the damage done in many cases.

Any more than we need proof that our house will burn down before investing in insurance.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

You are always babbling on about 'papers' yet when they are provided, you don't even read them. The science you accept as 'gospel' is in question. Do your homework.

You seem to have misread my post.

What I said was that there is no long term trend in GCR, so they are not causing the current climate change.

You seem to have thought that I said that GCRs have no effect on climate.

Do you have any papers that show a trend in GCRs?

No?

Then read my points more carefully.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

This Discussion provides an argument to your statement which I agree with

Not a very scientific site.
Do you have a credible one?

Originally Posted by Paradox

Correct

Okay. There's no evidence for your conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by Paradox

No source needed, he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar Is NASA’s Hansen Playing Enron Accounting Games With Climate Data? Blog Post by Noel Sheppard

The claims were substantiated and the practices unwound...do you still need a scientific acknowledgment?

Yes, a scientific source is critical in this environment where blogs such as the one you have linked are so hostile to science and scientists.

And this one is particularly full of rubbish. It refers to a very minor correction made to the NASA data, that was neither Hansen's personal doing, nor intentional. A change in the time of day that temperature measurements were taken was overlooked. And it had nearly no net effect on global temperature estimates:

You can see the difference, but its not cause to call for the head of one of the world's most respected and accomplished climate scientists, who had the courage to stand up and say that politicians were censoring climate science.

Originally Posted by Paradox

With Mankind present we may see an anomaly... cooling while C02 is increasing.

Okay... you claim the world is cooling. You're going to need to provide a spectacular source for that information.

What is it?

Compare with the temperature record:

Originally Posted by Paradox

It's more like a subtle but overwhelming 'Gullivers Travels' type of fraud.

What kind is that?

Originally Posted by Paradox

Kyoto Who?

You've not heard of the Kyoto protocol?

Originally Posted by Paradox

Oh, Bush?

No, McCain and Obama.

Originally Posted by Paradox

Is that a trick question?

It wasn't intended to be that hard to understand. I'll try to rephrase it.

You claimed that:
The policy makers, governments and citizens which stand in opposition to you seem to be winning.
It sounds like rubbish to me. Please back this up with a reliable source.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

That's not an argument. If you can't show why the content is wrong, then you haven't got an argument, have you?

Smoke and mirrors isn't an argument. It is a statement. From WIKI: "A deceptive, fraudulent or insubstantial explanation or description."

If you don't understand it, read it through again.

Now who's being ignorant?

Your ignorance here seems to be in your understanding of the term "expected".

From Wiki: In probability theory the expected value (or mathematical expectation, or mean) of a discrete random variable is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome of the experiment multiplied by the outcome value (or payoff).

Does that help?

Not really. That is a mathematical expectation, not the expectation of people in the real world. From my earlier post, I maintain that 95% of the people will expect nothing to be paid, 5% will expect to pay $100. I am in the 95 percentile, you are in the 5 percentile.


Yes.

The Stern report:
Originally Posted by Stern Review final report
Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
...

You are using a government funded report to justify a government policy based on government funded scientific papers based on models and estimates based on worse case scenarios based on very little fact. You are using said government funded report to justify spending a disgraceful amount of money on a chance of future warming, when the global temperature rise of 1948-1998 (of 0.6 deg C) may or may not be solely due to anthropogenic reasons. You use the 'peer-reviewed' process to answer 80% of all your posts on this forum and blithely ignore the fact that sceptics distrust that process. You imply catastrophic results over the next century and cherry-pick your reasons without taking a holistic view.
Even the Stern report said the 20% figure was based on 'if a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account..." and is littered with doubt.


No, they take it out in case the unlikely happens.

No, they take it out to fund the cost of replacement. You are not talking about house insurance, you are talking about protection money a la 'the Mafia', where someone pays money to (try to) prevent the property being damaged. This is normally the result of coercion.

Right. This makes the decision to preserve all the more pertinent.

How do you hope to preserve when China and India have no remit to reduce emissions?

Exactly. I though you said the analogy was nonsense, but you seem to be understanding.

Your analogy was specious nonsense. Mine is better.


No, it's simple game theory. Take the decision with the least expected cost. Easy. Not blackmail. Not difficult. Sort of a no-brainer really.

See above re game theory and coercion.

Completely wrong. It is spending money on helping people now. There are 150,000 people per year dying from global warming now. Money spent reducing emissions is a very cheap way to save lives compared to the money spent on rapid nutrition or digging children out of collapsed schools after an earthquake.

I notice you have not addressed my reply to your earlier comment about 150,000 deaths. Do they actually have 'climate change' as the cause of death? You want to spend tens of billions of dollars (already, and much more promised) when we could be spending that money on rather more current - and vastly greater - causes of death such as, well, see link:
List of causes of death by rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By "we" the whole world is meant.

See above ref China.


If the cost of reducing emissions is less than the cost of dealing with climate change, then we should reduce emissions rather than deal with climate change.

This is kind of obvious, isn't it?

Only if the climate change is caused by the emissions. And, even then, only if the climate change is detrimental. Both issues are equivocal.

And we don't need proof, especially, as you point out, there is no replacing the damage done in many cases.

We need proof that the equivocal issues are worth spending the money. We need proof that spending the money will give us value for money.

Any more than we need proof that our house will burn down before investing in insurance.

Oh Dear, nice sound-bite. See above re insurance and Mafia.

My stuff in blue again.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

You seem to have misread my post.

What I said was that there is no long term trend in GCR, so they are not causing the current climate change.

You seem to have thought that I said that GCRs have no effect on climate.

Do you have any papers that show a trend in GCRs?

No?

Then read my points more carefully.

Hi BW,

Your position (on AGW) is simply lacking...no matter how many institutions on the bandwagon or peer-reviewed papers on the books. It doesn't take a scientist to come to this conclusion. The deck is stacked and its obvious to all. Kyoto and its subsequent policy goals are effectively DOA. Argue to your hearts content, you are a dying breed my friend...a relic of a dark period for science, and a reminder to us all that we must stay on our toes and remain critical of science and its influences. The fraud of Global Warming is unprecedented (unless corporate influence over our representatives here in the US can be counted). Maybe we'll get it right in time. We don't have it right at the moment.

The horses vitals are barely visible but flog away.

~Paradox

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Anchorage’s record setting cold summer

Global warming is occurring at about 0.02°C per year. It is most apparent in winter, and at night.

So a record in summer in one individual city is likely to be a regional climatic effect unrelated to global warming.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

I can't say whether it has been proved or not, but I would have thought that it is obvious that human activity has increased ghgs. What's your point?

That it has been proved that human activity has caused warming.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Yes, a scientific source is critical in this environment where blogs such as the one you have linked are so hostile to science and scientists.

Other scientists are the ones most critical of AGW.

And this one is particularly full of rubbish. It refers to a very minor correction made to the NASA data, that was neither Hansen's personal doing, nor intentional. A change in the time of day that temperature measurements were taken was overlooked. And it had nearly no net effect on global temperature estimates:
You can see the difference, but its not cause to call for the head of one of the world's most respected and accomplished climate scientists, who had the courage to stand up and say that politicians were censoring climate science.

It should have been (his head that is). OOps, ok maybe it wasn't the warmest year ever recorded... sorry all you impressionable and voting people out there...Ummm, it was an honest mistake?

Okay... you claim the world is cooling. You're going to need to provide a spectacular source for that information.

What is it?

A thermometer, have one handy?

What kind is that?

Gulliver was the large man that was immobilized by the tiny little (1/100th scale) people. They weaved an elaborate webbing of thread over him piece-by-piece and bit-by-bit until Gulliver was immobilized and at the mercy of the 'little people's' will.

You've not heard of the Kyoto protocol?

I was being sarcastic BW.

You claimed that:
The policy makers, governments and citizens which stand in opposition to you seem to be winning.
It sounds like rubbish to me. Please back this up with a reliable source.

Do current events qualify as sources?


~Paradox

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Global warming is occurring at about 0.02°C per year. It is most apparent in winter, and at night.

So a record in summer in one individual city is likely to be a regional climatic effect unrelated to global warming.

And how do explain last years record sea-ice extend in Antarctica? Never before recorded so high... Just another regional anomaly? It's actually been very cool this Summer here...

Nevermind

~Paradox