Time to put a halt to global warming hysteria in California

Why do you care?

As I scientist, I'm always amazed when non-scientists suddenly express definite opinions about complex scientific subjects such as global warming. Why do so many people - many of whom I'm sure were baffled by basic trigonometry and elementary calculus and high school physics - suddenly think themselves experts on a complex scientific subject involving energy flux transport, non-linear equations of fluid motion for both the oceans and the atmosphere, the latent heat of the earth and oceans, etc, etc.. I have a Ph.D. in physics but wouldn't attempt to claim that I fully understand the subject. So how is it that so many people who don't understand the difference between a sine and cosine from high school trigonometry and barely passed high school physics are now suddenly experts in a subject involving complex modeling of physical phenomena with 3D non-linear partial differential equations and even more complex mathematical beasts?

It's my understanding that jimmi-kins was studying the following article: Web Link

If you study the thermo-meters you will observe that one does in fact represent cold. jimmi-kins thinks that if you count the number of thermo-meters, it boils down to a grand total of 2! yup...that's how he figured out his new weather change theory!

at a certain point in her calculations, she concluded the following:

one two buckle my shoe
three four shut the door
five six pick up sticks
nine ten you big fat hen!

jimmi-kins is waaaaaaaaaaay sneaky cleaver...

If anybody wants to figure out issues related to Global Warming then study this: Web Link

The Brits are mostly concerned about when to hang on to their umbrellas so that they don't get soiled by splashing mud.

i rest my case...

(Post makes no sense and has been removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff.)

Two weeks after having retreated in red-faced shame in the face of superior arguments, Kath, Davidg, and jim01, at almost the identical moment, all decide to reappear on these pages. Some coincidence! And that their 'positions' are virtually identical ... some coincidence!

Sam,

I hope you have better luck with "Jimf01" than I had when we discussing the propriety and wisdom of government bailouts of financial companies like AIG. Jim was convinced that complex and burdensome regulation was what brought down AIG, rather than AIG's reckless speculation in the credit default swaps market that really brought the company. More regulation of derivatives may have actually saved AIG and prevented mass bailouts, and even prevented the recession. I hope Jim has come to realize that he was wrong, and will own up to that.

In the case of global warming, I agree with you completely. I have a BS in physics, and realized in graduate school that I was in over my head at that level and finished my MS in electrical engineering. I can't claim to deeply understand climate modeling or to judge whether the most probable temperature increase in 50 years in 1 or 5 degrees. But I always find it surprising and strange when people without any scientific background at all dismiss climate science outright, or make statements like "It is arrogant and naive to think anything man could do would ever affect the climate," as Rush Limbaugh did.

When long-ago scientists started saying the world was not flat, there was lots of passionate resistance. When smoking was proved to be harmful, lots of resistance. Still some passionate resistance to both of those scientific conclusions. People still cling to the idea that vaccinations cause autism, an idea that has been soundly disproved.

So: no surprise that some people continue to deny what the vast preponderance of credible scientists tell us. When I say "credible," I mean mainstream scientists from respectable institutions, and lots of them. I bet the Univ of Alabama has its charms, but it is not where I like to get my basic science info from.

But it probably makes no difference who believes what (esp not here in Pleasanton), or how fast we mobilize to counteract global warming: we are possibly way beyond the point of no return, so no matter what we do, it will happen anyway. Of course, as a whole, we are doing very little. So get ready for the huge temporary variations in weather (storms, heat, cold, drought, flood, hail, wind): more volatile, more extreme, as the avg temp inches up by what may seem tiny increments that are actually changing things a lot.

Remember too, to that change does not happen in a straight line: it's an up-and-down line, and the up-points and the down-points will be (and already seem to be) farther up and farther down -- and more frequent. And more of them (disasters).

But to each his own opinion. The reality is what the reality is, even if we do not know it perfectly at present, even if we choose to take a Walt Disney view that contradicts reality.

Sam: you ask why ignorant people have strong opinions about complex subjects.

Remember the old "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like"? Some people like to get as close to understanding reality as possible, some people don't. Some people pick a comforting view of the world, even if that view has little basis in the ordinary kinds of reality. It's a little like being a substance abuser -- getting the comfort you want no matter what.

Being comfortable with being ignorant, even proud of it, is having a big resurgence. The support of wildly ignorant politicians like Palin, Bachmann -- indeed the entire roster of GOP primary candidates for president in 2012 -- demonstrates that. "I don't know anything about climate science, but I know I like a comforting world view that gives the finger to educated specialists."

There's lots of that in our dear P-town.

Can't say I know enough about global warming science to seriously contest what is said by the scientists. I do think it's significant that the 'best' the anti global warming contingent has is a scientist from Univ of Alabama, Huntsville -- not exactly a bastion of academic sophistication -- and an outspoken right-winger, no less.

What strikes me as so significant about the 98%+ of scientists who support the apparently quite robust man-created, global warming theory, is that they are taking this position despite all the money that Big Oil and other big polluters are throwing around in their reactionary effort to downplay the harm they are causing the planet.

The global warming deniers have stood first in line to fill their pockets with research funding from the big polluter corporations. Anyone remember all those 'scientists' who denied that there was a demonstrable causal relationship between smoking and cancer? Here it's not the tobacco companies but the oil and chemical companies that have a shill or two in their pockets.

As for why people believe those who are shilling for the big corporations, it no doubt has something to do with an ideology which has them believing that corporations must be good because they're not government, and that scientists located in public universities must be bad because they belong to a union and patronize libraries maintained by unionized librarians.

Too, with the mainstream media constantly reminding their audiences that 'scientists are divided' on global warming, the opportunity for reactionary ideologies to romp untethered within an atmosphere of misinformation should not be underestimated.

Wow, some one has been busy posting nonsense from the same IP address all day long! For all you pseudo-scientists with your BS degrees, an IP address links you back to the point of origin where you posted your religious prothletizing.
So, Sam and patriot, what is your opinion about algore's gloom and doom hockey stick graphical presentation of the worlds end? Is he a scientist? He is, after all the face of 'global warming' and the carbon trading scam that he profits from. Why is it OK for him to have an opinion about alleged global warming and yet Jim cannot?
Typical for liberals, if they don't like the message, they attack the messenger. Patriot, you are not only arrogant but misinformed and very gullible. Good luck trading your carbon credits.....

Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 — ‘Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record’
Read the Full Article
Web Link

"right," as usual, is confused about which name he's posting under. Takes on Al Gore -- no, not any of Gore's ideas, just Gore because, well, who knows, and who cares? My fave from right/jimbo: "religious prothletizing." Yeah, I want to defer to his views on science, cuz his erudite use of the language is just so very, very impressive. Well done, right, once again. You continue to outdo yourself. You're a model for us all.

To "Right",

You say "Patriot, you are not only arrogant but misinformed and very gullible."

To which I ask, where have I expressed an opinion one way or the other concerning global warming, other than to say I don't know? In what way am I misinformed, and about what? And why assume that I am a "liberal". Are you just making assumptions? And what have I said that was arrogant? And I never said anything about carbon credits. In fact, I don't think trading carbon credits is an effective means for regulating carbon emissions.

And as for my opinion on Al Gore, I'm no more a fan of Al Gore than I am of Sarah Palin, and he is no more qualified to express scientific opinions than is Palin, or Limbaugh.

In short, did you read anything that I wrote? What are you talking about?

1st, I notice that I am the only registered user posting here. Yet, anon trolls will accuse me of posting anon comments?

This place hasn't changed. After 24 hours, we have only personal attacks and trolling, none of which have anything to do with the actual topic.

Sam "As I scientist", Well, As I not scientist, I have not offered any scientific opinion. I have offered political opinion based on what the IPCC has now stated, compared to their consensus offered in 2007. Rising temperatures and higher sea levels are less of a problem than they were predicted to be in 2007. That is a fact. It's not my fact. It happens to agree with research offered by other scientists who previously disagreed with the models.
Another fact, many of the climate models offered up over the last 20 years are now proving to be faulty.
And so, I offer an opinion on the laws created in California based upon this hysteria.
In fact, in re-reading your comment Sam, I realize now, the target of your criticism is those who created AB32 and the CA ARB, the "non-scientists" who "express definite opinions about complex scientific subjects".
Yes, that does fit the CA legislature to a T!

Just seeing this, "Two weeks after having retreated in red-faced shame in the face of superior arguments, Kath, Davidg, and jim01 at almost the identical moment, all decide to reappear on these pages." I haven't commented on this topic. You also miss that (a) all three of us are registered users, (b) I have no reason to post as another person, and (c) as a registered user, I was able to post on the closed threads.

As for this topic, it is unclear to me where the truth lies.

Hi Jimf01,

While I agree that the authors of AB32 were politicians, not scientists, I can't say the same for the CA ARB.

Web Link
Web Link

"The governing board is made up of eleven members appointed by the state's governor. Half of the appointees are experts in professional and science fields such as medicine, chemistry, physics, meteorology, engineering, business, and law."

"The California Air Resources Board, also known as CARB or ARB, is the "clean air agency" in the government of California. Established in 1967 when then-governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford-Carrell Act..."

Did you really mean to say that the CARB were "non-scientists"?

Concerning the Wall Street Journal article, while I enjoy Matt Ridley's popular writings about genetics, and I have no doubt that he is a very intelligent man, I would say that his expertise is in zoology and investment banking (maybe), not climate modeling.

You may want to take a look at this rebuttal of Ridley's column, if you haven't already. Please let me know what you think of Phil Plait's remarks.

Web Link

I would also say that Ridley suffers from a tendency to blind optimism; He tends to ignore the negative and focus too much on the positive on a range of subjects.

Web Link

Web Link

BobB, you misinterpret what I have said, and what Phil Plait said about Matt Ridley.
First, I clearly referred to "those who created AB32 and the CA ARB" when responding to another posters remarks. In case that was unclear, the next sentence included the words "that does fit the CA legislature". But I do appreciate your mention of the origins of the CA ARB, and clarification that it was, indeed, the very same CA legislature who created the ARB. If they had created themselves, or somehow just materialized in Sacramento, it would be shocking news.
Second, you linked to a purported "rebuttal of Ridley's column" which is not. Mr Plait was rebutting earlier remarks from Mr Ridley, which is plainly obvious because his piece is dated July of 2013, while Mr Ridley's current column, part of the basis for my post here, is from Sept 13, 2013.
So we see that Mr Plait seems to watch Mr Ridley's remarks carefully, but I see no mention on Slate that Mr Ridley’s latest column has been rebutted. In fact it does seem that Mr Plait makes a living labeling folks “climate deniers” when they dare to step out of line. The issue here is that Mr Ridley is citing the IPCC’s own forthcoming report, and the fact that they are dialing down previous predictions of how fast the planet is warming.
This will no doubt create a problem for the left-wing cadre who spend lots of time casting aspersions on global warming skeptics. The IPCC is soon to be out with consensus predictions much more in line with previous predictions of their critics than the previous assessments they released.

As for the scientific reputation of the CA ARB, I present to you the case of Hien Tran
Web Link

the chair of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols knew of the fraud before voting on the controversial regulation, later admitted this and apologized for it:
Web Link

The Governor knew about this and did nothing. Mary's punishment for covering up the fraud? Nothing, she still has her job Web Link

But step out of line, and what happens? Dr. James E. Enstrom, who exposed this fraud, was terminated by UCLA.

Web Link

Oh yeah, a number of scientists are employed by the ARB, but in light of these events, what is the real value of any of their work? Any of it? Because they certainly now know, if any research or statements do not fall in line with what the fraudulent bureaucracy desires, your career can quickly and quietly be extinguished.

Are you sure Dr. James E. Enstrom was terminated because he "exposed this fraud", or was it for other reasons? The article you linked to seemed pretty biased.

BobB, we are just going to have to let the courts decide this. I could see where it would be difficult to write a more balanced piece on this, as UCLA officials will not tell their side of the story, calling it a "confidential personnel issue".

Let's get back to the ARB. Here's another discredit to the reputation of the scientists at the CA ARB. Remember MTBE? In an attempt to create cleaner burning fuel, the CA legislature, backed by the CA ARB mandated MTBE as an additive to all gasoline in 1996. By 1999, the substance was completely banned in CA as a suspected carcinogen. MTBE was detected in groundwater and reservoirs all over the state. Cost of cleanup of contamination may exceed $30 billion for CA alone.

Dr. Wortman, a former engineer-scientist of the California Air Resources Board, the bill requiring MTBE use in gasoline in all of California was passed because of political pressure. "The chair kept banging on me that the governor insisted on passing it", said Wortman. "The Air Resources Board staff selectively threw out all the data they didn't like."
Web Link

Other effects of MTBE was to cause damage to certain plastics that were used to make fuel lines in some cars. This damaged caused car fires in some cases!

Yet another case where the science was made to fit a political agenda, courtesy of the CA ARB.

The dilemma of the halt in global warming is now haunting the IPCC, they are at odds internally, do they admit what is happening, or risk becoming the science deniers?