President Barack Obama may warn that carbon dioxide is causing global warming, but his flight to Paris to join other world leaders at the United Nations climate summit emitted more CO2 than driving 72 cars for a year.On the bright side, I'm reasonably certain he'll use Air Force One several more times to make his points about profligate energy use.
Obama’s Paris jaunt will send more CO2 into the atmosphere than 31 American homes‘ energy usage for an entire year. The president’s trip is equivalent to burning 368,331 pounds of coal or 797 barrels of oil, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon footprint calculator.
The same rule applies -- once our climate betters start using Skype for their meetings, I'll start believing that they are serious about the topic.
13 comments:
So are you saying that climate change is not real? I guess I do not see your point.
I would say the following, good sir:
• The climate is always changing
• We don't understand how the climate changes and the long-term implications of these changes that well
• Nearly all of the catastrophic predictions we've seen in recent years have not come to pass
• It would be far easier to believe that climate change is a crisis if world leaders would show leadership and change their behavior on junketry; if climate change is a crisis, they should be on Skype, not jetting to Paris
• I also think there's reason to believe that the reported numbers are dramatically overstated, for a variety of reasons — many weather reporting stations have moved locations, to use just one example
• I also believe that the primary driver of climate changes isn't human behavior, but rather the sun
• When you see people refer to those who are skeptical of particular claims as "deniers," it's easy to conclude that you are not dealing with a movement that is rooted less in science than in an ersatz religiosity
• When you see advocates for a particular point of view (such as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) calling for their adversaries to be punished or even jailed for expressing dissent or skepticism, we are in a dangerous place.
I could say more, but I suspect you get the point. The world needs skeptics, now more than ever. I choose to be a skeptic, for as long as I'm allowed to be one.
Chuckwagon, to add something to our host's comment; if this is a scientific conference, why is the head of the IRS there and spending five grand on limo services?
There is abundant evidence that the case for global climate change is overstated at best; there is even more evidence that the end game is not rescuing the environment, but enabling central control of economies.
Which is why, again, that Mr. Koskinen is in Paris.
As much as I appreciate your guys' comments, I am looking at it from a scientific point of view. The number of scientists that believe the research is staggering. And though Tom Coburn and others who are not scientists like to think they know what they are talking about, they have no freakin' clue. I could list stats all day that would destroy the skeptics. Sorry to go on a rant, but it boggles my mind on how this has turned in to a political fight when it is NOT one. It reminds me of when Rachel Carson talked about DDT or smoking was found to be harmful. The big corporate giants got into the fray to make it look like there was other ways to look at it by making it a political battle because they had money in the fight. The clincher was the tobacco companies in the late 90's were saying with a straight face that smoking was not harmful when all of the documentation and research was staring them in the face. It would have been a lot funnier if it were not so disgusting. And now they are spreading the addiction overseas and making tons of profit.
Yes, the world leaders need to clean up their acts, but it is not a reason to deny that climate change is not real. And yes, some of the catastrophes may not have happened, but does that mean the science is not correct? Hell, even Exxon acknowledges it as such and even knew about it 1981. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding I know this is as huge deal to conservatives, but again, it is not a political fight - it is scientific. To deny as such is bit like playing the fiddle while Rome burns.
Notice what I said, CB, right at the outset. The climate changes all the time. That's not the question. And it is a political question, because the scientists you cite are calling for political solutions, most of which involve the use of tremendous force.
Chuckwagon, what you're doing is the basic appeal to authority fallacy. You cannot line up enough Ph.D.s to overcome that fallacy--and the very fact that the IPCC and her minions are using it prolifically indicate that what is going on is not science. It is politics.
It's amazing what a group of thousands of Ph.D.s can admit when they think nobody's looking at their logic, isn't it? Looks like climatology needs a serious come to Jesus moment here.
Mr. D, I believe you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying the climate changes all of the time. What I am saying is the science of man-made climate change is sound. That does not deal with politics at all. The solutions about what to do about the climate change is political - and I agree with that. And are some of the solutions politically motivated? Absolutely! But what frustrates me is the politics involved is doubting the science - which does not make sense. It reminds me of the National Geographic March 2015 issue entitled "The War on Science" which discussed saying climate change does not exist, vaccinations can lead to autism, GMO food is evil, the moon landing was fake and evolution never happened. It's question was "What's causing reasonable people to doubt?" On climate change it talks about Sen James Inhofe, with no background at all in science, climatology, etc. saying global warming is a hoax. This quote then follows, "The idea that hundreds of scientists from all over the world would collaborate on such a vast hoax is laughable - scientists love to debunk one another."
So, Bike Bubba, it is not a philosophical construct of authority fallacy, it is called evidence. It is called proof. It's like saying I have no right to claim smoking is dangerous because I am appealing to medical authority and instead should listen to people who might say, " George Burns smoked a cigar every day and lived to be a 100, so there is nothing wrong with smoking!"
Here is what the NOAA stated: There is no reasonable doubt that the world is heating up. This conclusion is based on direct observation of multiple lines of evidence, from temperature readings to tree-ring measurements. Temperatures bump up and down month to month, year to year. But the long-term trend is up. The 2000s was the warmest decade on record, followed by the 1990s, followed by the 1980s.
“If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded when it announced that the 2000s had set a decadal temperature record. “The warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”
So time to have the come to Jesus time, Bike Bubba and admit climate change is real - I am sure He will forgive you.
You are confusing science with scientism, CB. I'm skeptical about a lot of things beyond the claims of scientists. The point of the post, if you recall, is the actual behavior of the climateers who are currently in Paris. They are behaving in a way that is at great variance with the claims they make, the same claims you accept. Perhaps you are sanguine with that. I'm not. And you are conceding the primary point -- the political solutions are what really matter here.
I would add that conflating skepticism with climate change science with claims that the moon landing was fake is moving the goalposts. I also have direct knowledge of how autism works -- two families we know very well have children with profound autism, and I don't ever, ever blame vaccines. In re GMO foods, I'd further add that Norman Borlaug is one of my heroes. And by the way, the last line about Bubba is a cheap shot. Bubba can speak for himself, but you should know that he is an engineer and he knows far more about science and the scientific method than either you or I do.
No, Chuckwagon, appeal to authority is a fallacy, PERIOD. When you combine that with suspect methods of collecting data(climate monitoring stations near heat sources), hiding data from critics, failure to adhere to basic standards of statistical significance, and threats of criminal prosecution for scientific disagreement, one ought to come to the conclusion that there is a lot of mess in climatology that needs to be cleaned out, starting with NOAA and NASA.
To paraphrase the President, science needs to be restored to its rightful place, and in the case of too many climatologists, that place is in the front row of an informal logic class so they can learn about the genetic fallacy. You would do well to join them.
Another way of phrasing my comments; I really wish that whatever expertise I've accumulated in the scientific method would come into play when evaluating modern climatology. The ugly reality is that the fraud (and I use that word pointedly) starts with the abuse of the principles of informal logic. Most controversial science does, really.
And since vaccines are mentioned, yes, I did look at that long and hard. Sad to say, I've come to the conclusion that while data suggests that they work (when was the last case of polio or smallpox we heard about?), the medical community does a lousy job at presenting the evidence--in large part because we've made it a political issue.
Or, as W.E. Deming was fond of saying to engineers far more eminent than myself "In God we trust; all others must provide data." He understood the genetic fallacy.
Bike Bubba, I have not seen the extremeness that you have mentioned. I appreciate the knowledge you have as an engineer, but I am not understanding why you have a problem with relying on authority. I also would like to know where you get your info on all the problems you state, because it does not conform with the information I have studied or read. I guess I need to ask this question: So in my example of smoking is that not the same thing about medical research or would you not accept the authority on that as well?
Mr. D, my main point was that the science was correct. Your main point may have been about the political aspects. While I said there was some issues with the political issues, I do not disagree with all of them. The different topics that National Geographic mentioned are the same in the sense that the same basic reasoning is being used. We will not agree on this topic and that is the way it will need to be as we all believe we have reasoning on our side. The only way we will know for sure is to see if man-made climate change does indeed play out.
Bike Bubba, I was updating my comments at work and did not see that you had made a clarification on your argument and I do get your position now. Thank you for your explanation.
Regarding the vaccine issue, I did look into it as well. I would agree that people need to be better informed of the vaccines as it is not like they are swallowing aspirin. Also, I think the vaccines could be spread out more as it seems like putting so many together causes some issues.
Also, to Mr D, I should not have been making comments at work as when I look back at my comments it seems disjointed and harsher than I meant. If you can weed through it to get the basic gist and ignore the tone. :)
Chuckwagon Boy; I stand against arguments based on the genetic fallacy because they are bad logic, and moreover because just about every time someone uses a "just trust me" argument (appeal to authority in a nutshell), they are blowing smoke at me.
Good engineers always use logic and data, and we're very fond of quoting Deming, one of the greats of quality engineering.
And that's why we tend to be very suspicious of anyone who appeals to authority or consensus--it's simply a great way for demogogues to create hockey stick graphs from one set of tree rings, conspire to hide evidence from critical scientists, and even work to criminalize thought.
If you doubt this, look it up. Your host has some good resources on this. It's ugly.
Post a Comment