New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Settled Science Update

Zam-Zam

Senator
A look back at what they said, and who said it:

Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, the father of Earth Day said before the first Earth Day in 1970 that “the secretary of the Smithsonian Institute believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

Not to be outdone, Life Magazine reported that same year that “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, the celebrated author of The Climate Bomb, wrote in 1971 that "by the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1975 Newsweek ran a now-infamous article entitled “The Cooling World,” which cited several climate scientists in concluding that “the central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

Global famine was a popular prediction in the 70’s. North Texas State professor Pete Gunter summed up the prevailing sentiment when he wrote in “The Lving Wilderness” that by “by the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

In 1986, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress that “global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

Two years later, Dr. Hansen told an interviewer that in 20 years, the area below his New York City office would be completely changed, most notably that “the West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

Even the great Carl Sagan predicted in 1990 that “the planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

That same year, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer with The Environmental Defense Fund wrote:

By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.

As recently as the last decade, both Dr. Hansen and Peter Wadhams, the head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge, believe “that the Arctic is likely to become ice-free...as early as 2015.”

That’s actually two years later than Al Gore predicted in 2007, 2008, and 2009, when he cited what he called a scientific consensus to claim that the North Pole would be “ice free by 2013.”

That’s good, because Pentagon scientists sure weren’t in 2003, when their report “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United States National Security” warned that within 10 years, “it was not implausible” that parts of California would be flooded, parts of the Netherlands would be uninhabitable, and an unprecedented rise in hurricanes, tsunamis, and tornadoes would spark wars across the globe as people fought for increasingly scarce resources.

Not to be outdone, scientists with the United Nations Environment Programme warned in 2005 that man-made global warming would so decimate coastal areas as well as the Caribbean and Pacific islands that there would be upwards of 50 million “climate refugees by 2010.”

Of course, none of these scientific predictions—from Earth Day straight through today—have ever actually been right, but more predictions keep coming...along with more admonitions that the science is settled.


http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onai...rief-history-of-fantastically-wrong-15767677/


I can't wait for the next round of predictions....:>)
 
A look back at what they said, and who said it:

Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, the father of Earth Day said before the first Earth Day in 1970 that “the secretary of the Smithsonian Institute believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

Not to be outdone, Life Magazine reported that same year that “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, the celebrated author of The Climate Bomb, wrote in 1971 that "by the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1975 Newsweek ran a now-infamous article entitled “The Cooling World,” which cited several climate scientists in concluding that “the central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

Global famine was a popular prediction in the 70’s. North Texas State professor Pete Gunter summed up the prevailing sentiment when he wrote in “The Lving Wilderness” that by “by the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

In 1986, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress that “global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

Two years later, Dr. Hansen told an interviewer that in 20 years, the area below his New York City office would be completely changed, most notably that “the West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

Even the great Carl Sagan predicted in 1990 that “the planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

That same year, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer with The Environmental Defense Fund wrote:

By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.

As recently as the last decade, both Dr. Hansen and Peter Wadhams, the head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge, believe “that the Arctic is likely to become ice-free...as early as 2015.”

That’s actually two years later than Al Gore predicted in 2007, 2008, and 2009, when he cited what he called a scientific consensus to claim that the North Pole would be “ice free by 2013.”

That’s good, because Pentagon scientists sure weren’t in 2003, when their report “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United States National Security” warned that within 10 years, “it was not implausible” that parts of California would be flooded, parts of the Netherlands would be uninhabitable, and an unprecedented rise in hurricanes, tsunamis, and tornadoes would spark wars across the globe as people fought for increasingly scarce resources.

Not to be outdone, scientists with the United Nations Environment Programme warned in 2005 that man-made global warming would so decimate coastal areas as well as the Caribbean and Pacific islands that there would be upwards of 50 million “climate refugees by 2010.”

Of course, none of these scientific predictions—from Earth Day straight through today—have ever actually been right, but more predictions keep coming...along with more admonitions that the science is settled.


http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onai...rief-history-of-fantastically-wrong-15767677/


I can't wait for the next round of predictions....:>)
Rather than responding to the entire "Gish Gallop" here, I'll focus on just one of the persistent lies that keeps making the rounds:

Two years later, Dr. Hansen told an interviewer that in 20 years, the area below his New York City office would be completely changed, most notably that “the West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”
​
So, did Hansen actually tell an interviewer that in 20 years the West Side Highway would be under water? Check your own link, embedded in the bolded, blue text, for an answer. According to that link, both of those involved in the conversation report that Hansen had been asked to speculate about what would happen in forty years, if CO2 doubled.

So, the prediction is based on what things would look like in 2028 if CO2 reached 560 ppm. Right now CO2 is about 407 ppm and increasing about 2.11 ppm per year. So by 2028, it'll be around 430.21 ppm. If the rate keeps going up by 2.11/year, we'd be at the 560 ppm mark by 2089. Will the West Side Highway be under water by then? No clue. But if you're going to fault Hansen, obviously you should do so based on what he actually said, not some claim you are putting into his mouth.
 
Rather than responding to the entire "Gish Gallop" here, I'll focus on just one of the persistent lies that keeps making the rounds:

Two years later, Dr. Hansen told an interviewer that in 20 years, the area below his New York City office would be completely changed, most notably that “the West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”
​
So, did Hansen actually tell an interviewer that in 20 years the West Side Highway would be under water? Check your own link, embedded in the bolded, blue text, for an answer. According to that link, both of those involved in the conversation report that Hansen had been asked to speculate about what would happen in forty years, if CO2 doubled.

So, the prediction is based on what things would look like in 2028 if CO2 reached 560 ppm. Right now CO2 is about 407 ppm and increasing about 2.11 ppm per year. So by 2028, it'll be around 430.21 ppm. If the rate keeps going up by 2.11/year, we'd be at the 560 ppm mark by 2089. Will the West Side Highway be under water by then? No clue. But if you're going to fault Hansen, obviously you should do so based on what he actually said, not some claim you are putting into his mouth.
And the rest of the predictions were..... right? Wrong?
Or taken out of context?

Remember when Gore said he'd exaggerate negative effects in order to bring more attention to his cause?
Seems he was not alone in that regard.
 
Rather than responding to the entire "Gish Gallop" here, I'll focus on just one of the persistent lies that keeps making the rounds:

Two years later, Dr. Hansen told an interviewer that in 20 years, the area below his New York City office would be completely changed, most notably that “the West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”
​
So, did Hansen actually tell an interviewer that in 20 years the West Side Highway would be under water? Check your own link, embedded in the bolded, blue text, for an answer. According to that link, both of those involved in the conversation report that Hansen had been asked to speculate about what would happen in forty years, if CO2 doubled.

So, the prediction is based on what things would look like in 2028 if CO2 reached 560 ppm. Right now CO2 is about 407 ppm and increasing about 2.11 ppm per year. So by 2028, it'll be around 430.21 ppm. If the rate keeps going up by 2.11/year, we'd be at the 560 ppm mark by 2089. Will the West Side Highway be under water by then? No clue. But if you're going to fault Hansen, obviously you should do so based on what he actually said, not some claim you are putting into his mouth.

The point obviously lost on some folks is this:

1. Scientific knowledge is tentative. Although scientific knowledge is supported by a wealth of data from repeated trials, it is not considered the final word. Scientific knowledge is at the same time stable and malleable. Scientists continually test and challenge previous assumptions and findings. After all, science is a human endeavor, and we know human perspective is limited and fallible. This idea of fundamental uncertainty is vital to scientific studies and is the basis of great scientific discoveries.

http://www.teacherlink.org/content/science/class_examples/Bflypages/nos.htm

People who speak of "settled science" are behaving in an unscientific manor. They've closed their minds to new ideas, only accept data that supports their pre-concieved conclusions, and often make predictions that time will prove incorrect - When the latter occurs, they'll ignore it and make new predictions. They are also often intolerant of anyone who suggests they might be wrong.

al-gore-settled-science.jpg
 
arkady jumped in his lies, before I could even issue a warning.

I've posted the same link before.

climate alarmists are simply never going to be able to outrun 40 years of hilarious lies and exaggerations.

government should stick to what is was created to do:

- national defense
- schools that actually work
- transportation infrastructure
- safe food, water, pharmaceuticals
- "sound money"
 
A look back at what they said, and who said it:
In 1986, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress that “global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”
Taking on another bit of the Gish Gallop (I don't have time to go through it item by item):

In 1986, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress that “global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”​

What did Hansen, in fact, say? The way your source presents that suggests that it's an exact quote of Hansen saying that "global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years." But, if you look a little more carefully, you'll see that it's a quote of someone else who, in turn, was paraphrasing Hansen. If you read his actual testimony (easily pulled from the Senate archives online), you'll see that his actual statement was much more involved. It said, in relevant part:

You can see from the upper part of the figure that from 1958, when the simulations began, until the present, any trends in the real world or the model are still small compared to the natural variability of the global temperature averaged over a season. Even if the temperatures are averaged over 5 years to reduce the noise, as we have done in the lower figure, the signal is still small compared to the natural variability of 5-year timeframe... But... by the 1990's the expected warming rises above the noise level. In fact, the model shows that in 20 years, the global warming should reach about 1 °C, which would be the warmest that the Earth has been in the last 100,000 years.​

As you can see, he's not claiming there will be two degrees of warming in those 20 years, or even just one degree. He's saying that the total total global warming (e.g., total warming relative to pre-industrial levels), would reach 1 degree, by about 2006, making it the warmest the Earth has been in 100,000 years.

That was pretty close to right. As of 2016, studies suggest we're about 1.25 degrees above pre-industrial global temperatures, or two degrees above the 5000-year average, which is the warmest point in 115,000 to 120,000 years:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mperature-climate-change-highest-115000-years

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/87ce...udy-earths-roughly-warmest-about-100000-years

That's for 2016, which was 0.32 degrees warmer than 2006 (20 years following Hansen's testimony), so you have to knock 0.32 degrees off that 1.25 degree figure referenced in the first link. So, it turns out that 20 years after Hansen's testimony, total global warming was 0.93 degrees, compared to Hansen's prediction of one degree. Not bad, eh?

Please particularly note that in Hansen's testimony, he's talking about the fact that the warming between 1958 and 1986 was small enough that it was overwhelmed by natural variability, even when you did five-year averages, but that the models suggested that soon wouldn't be the case -- that warming would be significant enough we'd see it clearly over the noise. He was right. You can confirm with the raw data here:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2017.csv

Here's what the five-year-average temperature anomaly looks like:

upload_2017-4-25_11-19-53.png

As you can see, as of 1986, when Hansen was testifying, the graph didn't look all that alarming. The five-year average was 0.206 that year, which was barely different from where it was four decades earlier, in 1945, at 0.194. The graph, as of 1986, was showing an up-and-down pattern where the downs were nearly as big and frequent as the ups. But Hansen was telling Congress that the models coming out of the climate science community were suggesting that over the next 20 years we'd be seeing a very different pattern -- one where the magnitude of warming overwhelmed the noise.

Again, as you can see, he was right. After 1986, the warming, using five-year averages, is remarkably consistent. There were no more long periods of cooling as there'd been in the prior era. Things just went up and up and up.

So, do you see why the climate change consensus became gradually broader and stronger over the last few decades? As of 1986, the data was mostly just a bunch of noise, and getting alarmed about the warming came down to whether or not you believed a bunch of climate models that had not yet showed any track record of accuracy. But, since 1986, the "noise" has been washed out by the "signal," just as those models were predicting, and we found that guys like Hansen had made predictions that were remarkably close to correct (0.93 versus 1.00). That track record of success builds credibility.
 
Last edited:
arkady jumped in his lies, before I could even issue a warning.

I've posted the same link before.

climate alarmists are simply never going to be able to outrun 40 years of hilarious lies and exaggerations.

"

Some more food for thought, for anyone interested:

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/
 
Because you can't
The whole point of a Gish Gallop is to overwhelm people with volume. All you need is a right-wing drone willing to mindlessly copy and paste a long list of someone else's claims, which takes him all of ten seconds of work. At that point, debunking them line by line would take ten or fifteen minutes each -- by which time the right-wing drone can have moved on to copying and pasting another long list of someone's else's claims. It's impossible for the truth to compete with lies delivered at that speed. So, the best we can realistically do is seize on a few of the claims to show how weak the material is. Of course, that doesn't prove that every single item is BS. But it puts people on notice that they shouldn't trust it without checking the facts.
 
arkady jumped in his lies

Reread. What I did was show what the link embedded in his own post showed, which directly contradicted the claim. He was too lazy to click on it, since he was content just to copy and paste the propaganda mindlessly. But the link is right there in his own material.
 
And the rest of the predictions were..... right? Wrong?
Or taken out of context?
I've now researched two of them and showed they were both wrong. I shouldn't be expected to do all the work. Now that you know the list has at least two pieces of BS in it, you're on notice to double-check before relying on any of the information. If you bother to do so, let me know what you find.
 
I've now researched two of them and showed they were both wrong. I shouldn't be expected to do all the work. Now that you know the list has at least two pieces of BS in it, you're on notice to double-check before relying on any of the information. If you bother to do so, let me know what you find.
Here, fact-check this one. It's an undeniable truth in the global warming hoax...

http://grist.org/article/roberts2/

There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?

Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
 
The point obviously lost on some folks is this:

1. Scientific knowledge is tentative.

Yes. For example, the idea that smoking increases your risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease is at least theoretically tentative. It's conceivable that some study will come out some day that shows that all the data that pointed in that direction was actually the result of some other factor -- for example, maybe it was just a pesticide that was sometimes used on tobacco that was causing those problems, and the people who smoked tobacco grown without that pesticide actually had lower risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease than the general populace. It's absurdly unlikely we'll find that out, but it's at least conceivable. But, in the meantime, we have to make personal choices and to set public policies. Should we, for example, continue to impose the laws that prevent children from buying tobacco products?

When the science isn't terribly politicized, we don't have trouble allowing public policy to be informed by the science. For example, in the US we accepted the opinion of experts that HIV causes AIDS, and so we tackled the AIDS crisis by way of HIV detection and transmission prevention, and by way of antivirals crafted specifically to target HIV. That wasn't the case everywhere. In South Africa, the science ended up politicized by denialists, who insisted the HIV/AIDS link was fake. And the South Africans paid the price. Even as we got our epidemic under control, theirs raged uncontrolled.

That's essentially what we're doing with regard to climate change. The expert community is telling us there's a strong degree of confidence about their findings, but for political reasons we're instead listening to the denialists, who insist the global warming/AGHG link is fake. We are paying the price, and the price is rising quickly.
 

Yes. For example, the idea that smoking increases your risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease is at least theoretically tentative. It's conceivable that some study will come out some day that shows that all the data that pointed in that direction was actually the result of some other factor -- for example, maybe it was just a pesticide that was sometimes used on tobacco that was causing those problems, and the people who smoked tobacco grown without that pesticide actually had lower risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease than the general populace. It absurdly unlikely we'll find that out, but it's at least conceivable. But, in the meantime, we have to make personal choices and to set public policies. Should we, for example, continue to impose the laws that prevent children from buying tobacco products?

When the science isn't terribly politicized, we don't have trouble allowing public policy to be informed by the science. For example, in the US we accepted the opinion of experts that HIV causes AIDS, and so we tackled the AIDS crisis by way of HIV detection and transmission prevention, and by way of antivirals crafted specifically to target HIV. That wasn't the case everywhere. In South Africa, the science ended up politicized by denialists, who insisted the HIV/AIDS link was fake. And they paid the price. Even as we got our epidemic under control, there's raged uncontrolled.

That's essentially what we're doing with regard to climate change. The expert community is telling us there's a strong degree of confidence about their findings, but for political reasons we're instead listening to the denialists, who insist the global warming/AGHG link is fake. We are paying the price, and the price is rising quickly.

Point missed completely I see.

Who saw that coming?.....:>)
 
Point missed completely I see.

Who saw that coming?.....:>)
I saw the point. You just haven't been able to grasp why that point is silly in this context. Yes, science is never totally settled. But the question in this context is whether it's settled sufficiently to form the basis of public policy decisions (e.g., attempts to limit human greenhouse gas emissions, or coastal planning that anticipates continued sea level increases). If we waited for 100% certainty about a scientific matter before allowing it to guide our policies, we would NEVER allow science to guide our policies. Instead, we wait until the experts are confident enough that it becomes reasonable to go forward with the working assumption they're right, until such time as there's reason to believe otherwise. We passed that point, with global warming, a couple decades ago. But it's been politicized in this country, so the imbeciles on the right are insisting that any uncertainty at all must block action.
 
Point missed completely I see.

Who saw that coming?.....:>)


When the warmies' weird weather panic religion requires them to equate fighting diseases like HIV and cancer with fighting "global warming", it's time to abandon rational discussion and call the cult deprogrammers.
 
It's an undeniable truth in the global warming hoax.

Not only do I deny that, I think that saying it's a hoax is a sure-fire sign that a person is mentally ill. It's one thing to take the view that the vast majority of climate scientists are getting things wrong. That might be arrogant (for a lay person who has made no serious effort to study the matter), but it's at least not insane. But imagining a hoax that pulls in tens of thousands of experts from every major nation on earth, working for a wide variety of employers, with dramatically different prejudices and incentives, takes a special kind of paranoia. Anyone who really thinks climate change is a hoax (as opposed to anyone who just says it to troll or to accomplish some cynical political goal) is suffering from serious mental issue and should probably be medicated before he harms himself or others.

Anyway, do you see how your Grist article clearly contradicts your claim about Gore saying he exaggerated negative effects? You quote him saying that he relies on FACTUAL presentations about how dangerous it is. He doesn't say anything about exaggerating. He's answering a specific question about whether the science education should focus on scaring people about what's going wrong, or giving them hope about what can be done. He comes down on the side of leaning more towards scaring them. Although he sticks to factual presentations, he over-represents the discussion of the danger relative to the hopeful messaging. He thinks that in the future, when there's broader understanding of how big the risk is, you can change to a mix where you over-represent the discussion of the solutions.
 
Last edited:
I suppose the solution to the problem of there being such a plethora of of predictions that were wildly inaccurate would be to quit making wildly inaccurate predictions.....:>)
No. As you can see, that won't help. Even surprisingly accurate predictions, like the one I discussed from Hansen above (where he correctly predicted that over the next 20 years the warming would become great enough to overwhelm short-term variability) will simply be taken by stupid and/or dishonest people and misrepresented to be an inaccurate prediction. They need there to be inaccurate predictions, because they're emotionally wedded to the idea that global warming isn't happening. So, if they can look through millions of statements and find a few genuine inaccuracies, they'll do that, and trumpet those endlessly, but even if they were denied that, they'd just make something up. When you're facing off against horrible people like that, it really doesn't matter how scrupulous and careful you are -- they'll either fixate on a rare mistake or they'll invent one for you.
 
Back
Top