Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
The climate would be like it was in 1750 but for humans, according to Bill Nye “The Science Guy”.
Youtube Tucker Carlson Today, Fox TV, February 27th, 2017
This was a story about Bill Nye saying that “climate change deniers or extreme skeptics” of global warming are suffering from cognitive dissonance, having previously called them equivalent to war criminals, prompting the question from Carlton “Is that the choice, Bellvue (a notorious mental hospital) or Nuremberg?”
Yes – I’ve seen that. The arrogance of Bill Nye has to be seen to be believed! Tucker neatly exposes him for the charlatan he is.
Personally I'd rather enjoy today's climate rather than that of 1750. Maybe Nye would like to live in the LIA?
All of which assumes he knows what he's talking about.
Scott Adams seems to be coming out as a climate denier. Hitherto he took the line that, as a non climate scientist, he was not qualified to make a judgement. But it's clear that he could not help but notice that climate models have failed. He is now noticing that those who claim that the science is settled cannot answer simple questions on what the 'settled science' says.
Adams says that he is trained as a hypnotist, so he can often see what is going on in situations involving attempts at persuasion. He certainly pointed out, a long time back, that Donald Trump plays persuasion chess while others are merely playing persuasion checkers.
He comments, a bit wryly, on Bill Nye's explanation that climate science denial is due to climate deniers suffering cognitive dissonance, yet Bill Nye goes into cognitive meltdown on being asked how much warming is caused by humans.
...Look for Nye to go totally mental in the last minute of the clip, changing the topic to political leaks for no apparent reason. That’s your tell. His brain just sort of broke right in front of you. People do and say dumb things all the time, and it isn’t always cognitive dissonance. That’s why you look for the trigger to make sure the “tell” was what you thought it was. To be fair, spotting cognitive dissonance is more like bird-watching than science. Sometimes you misidentify a bird. But this example is like an ostrich sitting on your lap. Hard to miss. Enjoy.
People do and say dumb things all the time, and it isn’t always cognitive dissonance. That’s why you look for the trigger to make sure the “tell” was what you thought it was.
To be fair, spotting cognitive dissonance is more like bird-watching than science. Sometimes you misidentify a bird. But this example is like an ostrich sitting on your lap. Hard to miss. Enjoy.
The Seance guy's been caught by the Big Lie from the Piltdown Mann's straightened shaft, that climate is changing faster now than ever. He's said it so much he believes it. It's something he knows that ain't so.====================
Perhaps Bill Nye has spent too much time exposed to Lewandowsky.
I wonder what will replace CO2 on the EPA's list of known contaminants?
About 3:10, Nye clearly says 100%.
One symptom of cognitive dissonance is to ignore evidence that contradicts your belief system.
There you have it. What is the evidence for 100%? Sans understanding natural variation, any estimate is a guess.================
From IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers SPM 1.2 Causes of Climate Change."Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, drivenlargely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmosphericconcentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented inat least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers,have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have beenthe dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."
The IPCC doesn't say 100% since 1750. It says dominant (i.e. more than 50%) since the mid-20th century (i.e. 1950).Which is it for the IPCC - Bellvue or Nuremberg?
Mar 2, 2017 at 1:44 PM | Phil Clarke
(Written by an expert in hypocrisy)
I am without doubt a hypocrite.
I've yet to encounter any convincing evidence that the IPCC reports are anything other than an accurate summary of our understanding of the climate, however.
Phil, I think that the major problems are with the summaries for policymakers. But the reports themselves are - shall we say - somewhat selective.
The problem, as the likes of Judy Curry are making more and more abundantly clear, is that our understanding of climate is not sufficient to justify the unnecessary alarm, and the horrendous costs of the policy action already undertaken.=====================
About 3:10, Nye clearly says 100%.One symptom of cognitive dissonance is to ignore evidence that contradicts your belief system.Mar 2, 2017 at 1:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Mar 2, 2017 at 1:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Problem is, that takes him up into Gavin Schmidt country. He probably needed to say something like "more than about 150%", to account for the cooling periods such as after ~1880 and ~1945.
Shutting up and saying nothing really is often the best approach. It's something I noticed, as a grad student: That high-status academics in my discipline exercised the right to silence more often than lesser minds, when I expected them to have a lot to say.
Your comment does not clarify as to whether you agree with Mr Nye, Mr Clarke, but your past comments, ad nauseum, would suggest that you do. You also have stated that the term “catastrophe” is one that is ONLY used by the “deniers” – yet Mr Nye quite happily refers to the present rate of change (which, as most of us acknowledge, is negligible) is “catastrophically fast.”
Personally, I am glad that the climate is not as it was in 1750, because society may well be as it was in 1750, too. I don’t know about you, but I like being able to turn lights on and off at will, to have my home heated to comfortable temperatures, to have my food kept fresh in a refrigerator, to be able to prepare and cook the food with all the gadgets available, to be able to keep my house and clothes clean and fresh, as I would not be able to afford a maid (or other servants) to help me do so without the progress we have had since 1750. The cherry on the cake (seeing’s how you like cherry-picking) is to have the time to sit and enjoy the entertainments offered within my own home, and to converse as we are doing with people all over the world. You might want to reject all the modern comforts that have been bestowed on us by the progress we have made since 1750 – that is your choice, and, in this free society, you may so choose. However, your continued presence on this (and other? Who knows?) site does suggest that you are reluctant to surrender at least some of the pleasures progress has given us.
Bill Nye the Séance Guy has missed that the climate change after the last ice age was considerably faster than we are experiencing, now, as temperatures soared as fast as 8°C per century, to the Holocene optimum. We are now on the roller-coaster ride down to another ice age, with each rise we have had being slightly lower and shorter than the previous one. That is why I fear that the “hiatus” that is now being denied has ever occurred is the peak of the rise, and we are soon set to see temperatures fall. Proxy records show that falls tend to be more precipitous than rises.
Kenneth Richard has posted a refutation of this latest piece of Nye Nonsense at NoTricksZone: http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/06/historical-grape-harvest-dates-show-modern-temperatures-no-warmer-now-than-most-of-the-last-1000-years/
Unfortunately for Bill Nye and those who believe modern warmth is exceptional, or that the climate has changed at a catastrophically fast pace since 1750, scientists who use grape harvest dates to reconstruct historical temperatures have not found that modern warmth is either unusual or unprecedented. In fact, grape harvest date evidence suggests the opposite conclusion reached by Bill Nye is more accurate: there is nothing unusual about the modern climate and its “well-suitedness” to grape harvesting. In fact, there were several periods of greater warmth than today (and thus better suitability for grape harvesting) during the multi-centennial (~1400-1900 A.D.) Little Ice Age — which had the coldest temperatures of the last 10,000 years.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.