16 thoughts on “An International Climate Consensus”
Is that an economist’s way of saying “until hell freezes over“?
Reaching an international consensus on climate will probably never happen as long as their are paranoid climate change fanatics involved. It would be like trying to reach an International agreement on a one true religion.
OT, but I suspect the blog might be eating comments today, and I saw this thread on the topic, which linked to a page about a plug-in that periodically corrects the comment count in WordPress.
Reaching an international consensus on climate will probably never happen as long as their are paranoid climate change fanatics involved. It would be like trying to reach an International agreement on a one true religion.
Agreed, though the bunch of fanatics I have in mind isn’t the bunch of fanatics you have in mind.
Skeptics aren’t fanatics. In fact, they’re so non-fanatical that they generally don’t even care, except when it comes to being forced to do unproductive and downright stupid things. They’re like agnostics who don’t buy into church dogma, and would otherwise ignore religion altogether if not for all the preachers out there demanding that every citizen be forced to give ten percent of their gross income to the church. They also tire of being called heretics, denialists, and apostates, along with threats of censorship, firing, re-education camps, and the like.
Hear, hear!
Additional useless drivel to get past the minimum word count…
Skeptics aren’t fanatics. In fact, they’re so non-fanatical that they generally don’t even care, except when it comes to being forced to do unproductive and downright stupid things. They’re like agnostics who don’t buy into church dogma,
Sadly the evidence is that there are a lot of people obsessed with AGW, convinced that it’s a scam, and are willing to spend much of their waking hours frothing to each other about it, have a look at the comments and posts at WUWT, Climate Audit etc, I’d bet there’s way more comments on the internet from those you think want to ignore the issue than those you think obsessed.
Some of us are old enough to remember back in the 1970s when we were told of an immenent ice age that could only be prevented by massive government bureaucracy, cutbacks in emissions, and transfers of wealth. Then, some of the same people turned around and said that we’re facing manmade global warming that can only be prevented by massive government bureaucracy, cutbacks in emissions, and transfers of wealth.
When the symptoms are exactly the opposite but the “cure” is exactly the same, it isn’t hard to believe the whole thing is the biggest scam in scientific and socialistic history.
And before Jim, et. al get their skivvies in a bundle, the source is quoted below.
But many of Holdren’s radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.
The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.
Some of us are old enough to remember back in the 1970s when we were told of an immenent ice age that could only be prevented by massive government bureaucracy, cutbacks in emissions, and transfers of wealth.
Got a link to the alleged government solution to the hypothesized ice age? Fanatics base their beliefs on an imaginary reality.
Kid… We were there. You may be easily influenced by rewritten history, but those of us who were terrorized by the campaign have not forgotten.
And the following is equally true…
Sadly the evidence is that there are a lot of people obsessed with AGW, convinced that it’s real, and are willing to spend much of their waking hours frothing to each other about it, have a look at the comments and posts at WUWT, Climate Audit etc, I’d bet there’s way more comments on the internet from those you think want to impose their opinion on the issue than those you think obsessed.
I’d bet there’s way more comments on the internet … blah etc.
On a somewhat sadder note, Russell Johnson died this morning, and we should all raise a coconut in his honor because I think his role as the Professor on Gilligan’s Island inspired a lot of people to go into science. Perhaps his premature and alarming conclusion that their island was sinking (because he didn’t know that Gilligan was moving his tide gauge around) inspired a lot of people to be skeptical about global warming hysteria.
I wish people would stop calling it “consensus”. Consensus is a group opinion arrived at freely without coercion. How can that possibly pertain when people who challenge the “consensus” are labelled “deniers” and placed in the same moral bucket as holocaust deniers, or, indeed, perpetrators?
The correct terminology is “orthodoxy” and “dogma”. That’s what you call unproven beliefs that are held in place through intimidation and threat.
But isn’t all that’s required is for you to say there’s a consensus? I see 97% of posters in this thread agree with me on that.
I think Judith Curry’s “Italian Flag” presentation is much more helpful than “Consensus”. There are a lot of important issues in climate science, as in any science. Some are close to certain and accepted by pretty much everyone in the field (CO2 is increasing, surface temperatures increased in the twentieth century). Others are much more unclear, and some are completely unknown.
We have a name for any scientific issue where some (even only few) scientists in the field are still questioning it – we call it an “open question”. “Consensus”, if it is to have any important meaning, should be reserved for issues that no one is working on any more.
I think it is fair to assume that most climate scientists tend to agree on most of the points in the IPCC. I think it is also fair to say that there is a solid minority that is very uncertain about various critical parts of the IPCC, and perhaps a majority that disagrees with things that people want to take beyond the IPCC, such as attribution of extreme weather events (which the IPCC considers not established at all).
In order to make a statement like “We have to cut CO2 emissions right away!” many issues must be combined, many of which are uncertain or totally unclear.
Is that an economist’s way of saying “until hell freezes over“?
Reaching an international consensus on climate will probably never happen as long as their are paranoid climate change fanatics involved. It would be like trying to reach an International agreement on a one true religion.
OT, but I suspect the blog might be eating comments today, and I saw this thread on the topic, which linked to a page about a plug-in that periodically corrects the comment count in WordPress.
Reaching an international consensus on climate will probably never happen as long as their are paranoid climate change fanatics involved. It would be like trying to reach an International agreement on a one true religion.
Agreed, though the bunch of fanatics I have in mind isn’t the bunch of fanatics you have in mind.
Skeptics aren’t fanatics. In fact, they’re so non-fanatical that they generally don’t even care, except when it comes to being forced to do unproductive and downright stupid things. They’re like agnostics who don’t buy into church dogma, and would otherwise ignore religion altogether if not for all the preachers out there demanding that every citizen be forced to give ten percent of their gross income to the church. They also tire of being called heretics, denialists, and apostates, along with threats of censorship, firing, re-education camps, and the like.
Hear, hear!
Additional useless drivel to get past the minimum word count…
Skeptics aren’t fanatics. In fact, they’re so non-fanatical that they generally don’t even care, except when it comes to being forced to do unproductive and downright stupid things. They’re like agnostics who don’t buy into church dogma,
Sadly the evidence is that there are a lot of people obsessed with AGW, convinced that it’s a scam, and are willing to spend much of their waking hours frothing to each other about it, have a look at the comments and posts at WUWT, Climate Audit etc, I’d bet there’s way more comments on the internet from those you think want to ignore the issue than those you think obsessed.
Some of us are old enough to remember back in the 1970s when we were told of an immenent ice age that could only be prevented by massive government bureaucracy, cutbacks in emissions, and transfers of wealth. Then, some of the same people turned around and said that we’re facing manmade global warming that can only be prevented by massive government bureaucracy, cutbacks in emissions, and transfers of wealth.
When the symptoms are exactly the opposite but the “cure” is exactly the same, it isn’t hard to believe the whole thing is the biggest scam in scientific and socialistic history.
Larry, you are spot on. The following quote comes from this site: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/
And before Jim, et. al get their skivvies in a bundle, the source is quoted below.
But many of Holdren’s radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.
The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.
Some of us are old enough to remember back in the 1970s when we were told of an immenent ice age that could only be prevented by massive government bureaucracy, cutbacks in emissions, and transfers of wealth.
Got a link to the alleged government solution to the hypothesized ice age? Fanatics base their beliefs on an imaginary reality.
Kid… We were there. You may be easily influenced by rewritten history, but those of us who were terrorized by the campaign have not forgotten.
And the following is equally true…
Sadly the evidence is that there are a lot of people obsessed with AGW, convinced that it’s real, and are willing to spend much of their waking hours frothing to each other about it, have a look at the comments and posts at WUWT, Climate Audit etc, I’d bet there’s way more comments on the internet from those you think want to impose their opinion on the issue than those you think obsessed.
I’d bet there’s way more comments on the internet … blah etc.
Speaking of comments on the internet, check out Judy Curry’s summation of her congressional testimony yesterday. Face it rootbeer, you and your fellow fanatics have lost the science, and have lost the propaganda war. Maybe time for another red-button video?
On a somewhat sadder note, Russell Johnson died this morning, and we should all raise a coconut in his honor because I think his role as the Professor on Gilligan’s Island inspired a lot of people to go into science. Perhaps his premature and alarming conclusion that their island was sinking (because he didn’t know that Gilligan was moving his tide gauge around) inspired a lot of people to be skeptical about global warming hysteria.
I wish people would stop calling it “consensus”. Consensus is a group opinion arrived at freely without coercion. How can that possibly pertain when people who challenge the “consensus” are labelled “deniers” and placed in the same moral bucket as holocaust deniers, or, indeed, perpetrators?
The correct terminology is “orthodoxy” and “dogma”. That’s what you call unproven beliefs that are held in place through intimidation and threat.
But isn’t all that’s required is for you to say there’s a consensus? I see 97% of posters in this thread agree with me on that.
I think Judith Curry’s “Italian Flag” presentation is much more helpful than “Consensus”. There are a lot of important issues in climate science, as in any science. Some are close to certain and accepted by pretty much everyone in the field (CO2 is increasing, surface temperatures increased in the twentieth century). Others are much more unclear, and some are completely unknown.
We have a name for any scientific issue where some (even only few) scientists in the field are still questioning it – we call it an “open question”. “Consensus”, if it is to have any important meaning, should be reserved for issues that no one is working on any more.
I think it is fair to assume that most climate scientists tend to agree on most of the points in the IPCC. I think it is also fair to say that there is a solid minority that is very uncertain about various critical parts of the IPCC, and perhaps a majority that disagrees with things that people want to take beyond the IPCC, such as attribution of extreme weather events (which the IPCC considers not established at all).
In order to make a statement like “We have to cut CO2 emissions right away!” many issues must be combined, many of which are uncertain or totally unclear.