Tuesday, January 15, 2013

What You Need to Know about the Third US National Climate Assessment

Late Friday, a draft of the third US National Climate Assessment was released.

According to Mother Jones:
The report describes, among other things, a future of disappearing coastlines, a staggering rise in average temperatures of up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit (~6 C) this century, and more frequent heat waves and weather extremes. What's more, it bluntly states that our modest efforts thus far are "not sufficient" to avert these devastating futures

How serious should this report be taken? It may be wise to consider the warning of the Nobel prize winning scientist, Richard Feynman. In the clip below, he warns about the pseudo-science going on that pretends to be more accurate and correct than it actually is.

Also of note, Feynman at the start of this clip discusses the failures of the social scientists (in their attempt at mimicking the physical sciences). The clip suggests that Feynman would be sympathetic to the arguments put forth by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek that the methodology required to study the social sciences is different from that of the physical sciences, though it appears from this clip that Feynman is not familiar with their work.



19 comments:

  1. I don't have to know any of the science behind this. It is blatantly obvious that all this climate change nonsense is a scam. It's all about funding and government growing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have to know any economics. It is obvious that trillion dollar coins are the best way to fix the economy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

      Delete
  2. It's one thing to debunk pseudoscience. It's another thing to put fingers in ears, go "lalalalalalala" and ignore all the science.

    Try this for a start: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what I'm worried about. If that is correct we just look like backward fools for no good reason at all if we reflexively call it all a scam.

      It shouldn't matter to us libertarians whether the current government funded science is sound or not. We just need to push liberty and point out it's the best option whatever the situation is, be it warming or cooling.

      Delete
    2. Matthew, I don't know about the "we" in backward fools. I have stopped associating myself with anti-science people. If, however, I did associate myself with this "we", I'd say we look like backward fools with very good reason.

      As far as I'm concerned, policy debates are irrelevant when "we" choose to ignore the science.

      Delete
  3. Scientists can't predict next week's weather with any degree of certainty, and yet we're supposed to quake in fear when they assure us that their very long-term models point to imminent apocalypse. Much like the human brain, the earth's atmosphere is still only dimly understood; but that does nothing to stop an array of stato-scientific authoritarians from attempting to force "solutions" to "problems" they perceive in both.

    And of course "our modest efforts thus far are 'not sufficient'"! As a sub-sect of the Church of Something Must Be Done, these enlightened experts understand that unless the rabble ends its selfish ways and gives more power and more money to the state---that chief patron of all experts and Doer of all Somethings---, the Environment and the Children are irrevocably doomed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Economists can't predict next week's stock exchange rates with any degree of certainty, and yet we're supposed to quake in fear when they claim that the economy is leading to an imminent apocalypse.

      Delete
  4. 99% of the "science based" warming hysterics are big statists and Keynesians. So much for their alleged brainpower.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 99% of the scientists who made possible the cursed computer you typed on have reached a consensus on global warming. So much for the "wisdom of the idiots".

      Delete
  5. Warm and wet Hawaii is considered a paradise, but heaven forbid the world becomes a bit warmer and wetter and more Hawaiian-like! The number and variety of species supported in tropical zones far outweighs the number in arctic and antarctic zones. This "crisis" is no crisis at all. The crisis will be not when the world gets warmer, but when it gets colder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time Magazine 6/24/1974 cover: Another Ice Age?

      These brain-damaged people have no idea what they're talking about.

      Delete
  6. The report in question admits in its disclaimer that it is based on preliminary data and when the data actually comes in it WILL NOT be amended and observers note that the preliminary data comes mostly from urban areas which are warmer and warming. Next, this is for the USA and says nothing about global climate, which for the last 16 years has not experienced any significant warming (rise is less than the standard deviation of temperature). Mother Jones says that weather is more severe, but if you go look at the weather severity indexes by NOAA, it has been declining significantly for many years.

    Next, USA CO2 emissions are DOWN significantly, we are back to early 90's / late 80's levels, mostly because frac'ing has been creating abundant cheap gas. So if there is an "Evil CO2" issue it is not ours, but China and India. Go away, Mother Jones, go harass the Chinese and Indians, thank you.

    It's all BS to justify the taking of assets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Chinese and the Indians use public transport. The Chinese and the Indians don't use-and-throw, but eke out the worth from every little scrap. The Chinese and the Indians do not have 4 cars per family, or drive to get groceries. The Chinese and the Indians contribute far pollution less per capita.

      Delete
    2. We had to brake yesterday in Davidson, NC for an elderly (maybe 75-80?)person driving an electric golf cart from on the sidewalk across the pedestrian crossing. Seems like he was having a little difficulty with this idea of carrying groceries, and thought that pedestrian right of way guidelines applied to him.
      The Chinese contribute more pollution than you could ever imagine. Where you be?

      Delete
  7. The main problem it that it's a bunch of government science.

    If global warming is a problem, the only thing we can do about it is to pollute less and adapt, which is precisely what the free market best accomplishes. Pollution is trespassing, so that's taken care of. And adaption is fastest when property rights are respected and prices free to reflect reality.

    I say we libertarians are the best environmentalists out there, and we need to brag about it more. I wrote more on free market environmentalism here: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981100070

    ReplyDelete
  8. Even if this utter bull crap were true, why is it assumed the solution is giving yet more money and power to politicians and bureaucrats?

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's the converse to this which is equally dangerous and prevalent, what I call "the arrogance of the scientists." It's an almost pathological degree of belief they are both right and have all the answers to all questions. Basically, it's attitude that makes scientists say "no, that's impossible" when someone asks them "can we do this?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heck, it's better than idiots having a pathological degree of belief that they are both right and have all the answers to all questions. At least the scientists can get convinced one way or another with data.

      Delete
  10. Why use a tag line about rising sea levels? The oceans have covered much of North Carolina throughout geological history, only to fall and rise.
    OK you've got your proof to give your master that you posted; go collect whatever paycheck you are getting for advancing the globalist taxation cause.

    ReplyDelete