Interview with Judy Curry

[Lord of Planar]

"Throughout the video, Stossel focuses the climate change debate around the impacts, asking “is [climate change] dangerous? Is it gonna harm people?” He argues that “a few degrees [of] warming might be good.” and that “cold waves kill many more people than heat waves.” Michaels, an established climate denier with longstanding financial ties to fossil fuel interests, supports Stossel in this line of argument. He ties the warming climate to the increasing life expectancy in certain parts of the world; “[w]e don’t really care whether it warms a degree in the next 60 years. It warmed a degree in the last hundred years. Life expectancy doubled!”

Michaels goes on to portray the “climate alarmists” as people pushing issues to “compete with each other… for your money.” He argues that in contrast to previous “environmental catastrophes” like the population bomb or global cooling, “the global warming scare has longer legs ‘cause it’s got more money.”

Gee, have you ever heard any of his before????? *L*

2017 Green Tyranny: “The Truth About Climate Change” - Climate Files

Part of the climate denialist "Green Tyranny" video series hosted by John Stossel of the Koch-funded Reason Foundation, featuring prominent deniers.

www.climatefiles.com

Agree or disagree...

Do you agree with the Orwellian type censorship?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Any time you have John Stossel "investigating" the topic you know it's no longer really science. Outrage generation, yes, but science? Not so much.

That type of biased thinking is flat out wrong.

Even a blind squirrel find a nut every now and then.

 

[Lord of Planar]

John Stossel videos about climate change:

"Are We Doomed?"
"The Climate Censors"
"The Truth About Climate Change"
"The Climate Hustlers"

How hilarious is it that he terms OTHERS as "hustlers" when he has made a career of doing so.
And this is the person whom Longview inserts into the climate discussion. *L*

P.S. I just realized that I made these posts in the wrong thread, but the narrative remains the same.

Lets assume for a moment your belief that he is a hustler is real.

Who better to spot another hustler?

 

[Threegoofs]

Yep. It's hard to determine the size of that ballpark too. 1.64 C is pretty high in my opinion. About half that feels better to me.

And we all know your ‘scientific’ stance on climate is picking the numbers that ‘feel better’ to you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have done plenty of statistical analyses of data in my time. And, no, it isn't based on your "feels". The distribution drives the confidence intervals.

So? Facts make statistics. When you have solid facts you have soild statistical outcomes.

How much of the statistics stated in the climate sciences are based from absolute known facts, rather than assumed variables values?

You don't get to decide where the 95% CI on the mean is. That's driven by the data. Not you.

When the data is solid.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And we all know your ‘scientific’ stance on climate is picking the numbers that ‘feel better’ to you.

Is there anything you trust your gut feeling for at all?

 

[Hafnium1979]

But in dealing with so many variables and assumptions, the margin is an assumed margin. Not a genuine statistical margin.

Huh? I don't think that's even marginally accurate. The data dictates confidence intervals. There are actual formulas for calculating these things.

 

[longview]

And we all know your ‘scientific’ stance on climate is picking the numbers that ‘feel better’ to you.

Actually 1.5 to 2C is where the instrument data show the likely 2XCO2 ECS value to be,
and that is before counting the ~.2C of warming caused from aerosol brightening, in the Northern Hemisphere!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Huh? I don't think that's even marginally accurate. The data dictates confidence intervals. There are actual formulas for calculating these things.

Agreed. And that's because the data is not good enough to derive statistical confidences over.

 

[Hafnium1979]

So? Facts make statistics. When you have solid facts you have soild statistical outcomes.

That's backwards. Statistics helps point the way toward the most likely accurate result. It is couched in the measured errors and it acknowledges that errors exist.

REAL data has errors. You don't find a "fact" and then develop statistics around it.

Science is never 100% perfect proof of anything. The best you have is an estimate of most likely true conclusions. You will always have a certain degree of uncertainty.

Statistics is the best tool to parse out and eliminate any bias and it is the best tool to quantify the potential error.

How much of the statistics stated in the climate sciences are based from absolute known facts, rather than assumed variables values?

That sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[longview]

Huh? I don't think that's even marginally accurate. The data dictates confidence intervals. There are actual formulas for calculating these things.

The data is that doubling the CO2 level could increase the temperature somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5C,
so what are the confidence intervals?

 

[Hafnium1979]

Is there anything you trust your gut feeling for at all?

We all use "gut feelings"...but that doesn't mean we are doing science.

Science doesn't use "gut feelings". That's why they use statistics...to eliminate as much "gut feeling" as is humanly possible

 

[Threegoofs]

Is there anything you trust your gut feeling for at all?

Yeah. That the two guys in this threat who say they’re ‘sort of engineers’ probably don’t have any insight on climate science that’s worth a singed ass-hair.

 

[Hafnium1979]

The data is that doubling the CO2 level could increase the temperature somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5C,
so what are the confidence intervals?

Figure 3 of THIS article is a great start.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That's backwards. Statistics helps point the way toward the most likely accurate result. It is couched in the measured errors and it acknowledges that errors exist.

REAL data has errors. You don't find a "fact" and then develop statistics around it.

Science is never 100% perfect proof of anything. The best you have is an estimate of most likely true conclusions. You will always have a certain degree of uncertainty.

Statistics is the best tool to parse out and eliminate any bias and it is the best tool to quantify the potential error.



That sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

So, you agree that statistics can only point us to a likely path to follow. Not a certain one. Yes, no?

 

[Hafnium1979]

Agreed. And that's because the data is not good enough to derive statistical confidences over.

These folks would like to disagree with you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah. That the two guys in this threat who say they’re ‘sort of engineers’ probably don’t have any insight on climate science that’s worth a singed ass-hair.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Hafnium1979]

So, you agree that statistics can only point us to a likely path to follow. Not a certain one. Yes, no?

Indeed. I thought you were a scientist of some sort.

Science does not prove anything with 100% perfection. Statistics is the best means by which to estimate if the conclusion is correct.

 

[Threegoofs]

Thanks for sharing.

Anytime

 

[longview]

Figure 3 of THIS article is a great start.

From the abstract,

However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values.

What this does not mention, is that physics also cannot rule out values between 1C and 2C!

 

[Hafnium1979]

From the abstract,

What this does not mention, is that physics also cannot rule out values between 1C and 2C!

Unrelated.

You asked about confidence intervals. I provided you examples of distributions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Indeed. I thought you were a scientist of some sort.

Of sorts.

Science does not prove anything with 100% perfection.

We would have to be Gods to be that certain. I read the diameter of the proton is as question again, that current experiments say its even smaller than the variance allowed before.

Statistics is the best means by which to estimate if the conclusion is correct.

I disagree with that perspective. My perspective on science is that we take a hypothesis, and do our best to disprove it. When all failures to disprove it fail, then we are getting somewhere.

My biggest problem with the climate sciences is too many people refuse to try to disprove the thinking, that in my opinion, is an indoctrinated viewpoint.

Why are people constantly trying to deny the works of others that they don't like? Do you believe that to be science?

 

[Lord of Planar]

These folks would like to disagree with you.

Have you heard that in their own words, or is that your opinion?

 

[Lord of Planar]

From the abstract,

What this does not mention, is that physics also cannot rule out values between 1C and 2C!

I wonder why they also didn't also say: "However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out lower values."

How can one exist without the other?

 

[Hafnium1979]

Have you heard that in their own words, or is that your opinion?

...um, it's in the paper.