Princeton professor is wrong; Trump is right on climate

[usmbguest5318]

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions. How stupid do you have to be to publicly release a photo that makes you look so foolish?

Does anyone still believe that there is going to be that much warming? Apparently the Princeton boys do.

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions.

Those men are not, and were not when that photo was taken, Princeton scientists. They are, from left to right:

• Mort Webster
• Adam Schlosser
• Ronald Prinn
  
• Sergey Paltsev

They all worked at MIT in 2009 when that photo was taken.

That wheel you see is part of what they called "Climate Change Roulette." You can read about it in Popular Science's article, "Global Warming: a Controversial Bill, And a Game of Roulette."

Sorry. I found the photo by googling Princeton climate scientists predict warming.

If it was actually MIT then the scenario is still correct but the relevance to the thread title is weakened.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Yes, well, if one reads the article to which I linked and that contains the explanation for what the wheels are for, what precious little relevance there may have been will flag more surely than a post coital penis.

I didn't read the article. I am criticizing the photo.

These authority figures are giving the public a choice between 3C warming and greater than 7C warming, with the probability of something like 5C being likely. That is what the photo implies.

Is that a reasonable prediction? It matters not if they equivocate the prediction in the fine print (if they even do), it does not match the reality of doubling CO2 or the increase of temperature out to 2100. Especially now that climate sensitivities have steadily declined.

I find the photo to be yet another misdirection and exaggeration that is so commonplace in climate change propaganda.

I am disappointed that leading scientists would be willing to expose the public to this sort of garbage.

I didn't read the article. I am criticizing the photo.

Well, just how can you have a credible criticism of the photo when you don't in fact know what it actually depicts? Have you not heard the saying "looks can be deceiving?"

 

[IanC]

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions. How stupid do you have to be to publicly release a photo that makes you look so foolish?

Does anyone still believe that there is going to be that much warming? Apparently the Princeton boys do.

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions.

Those men are not, and were not when that photo was taken, Princeton scientists. They are, from left to right:

• Mort Webster
• Adam Schlosser
• Ronald Prinn
  
• Sergey Paltsev

They all worked at MIT in 2009 when that photo was taken.

That wheel you see is part of what they called "Climate Change Roulette." You can read about it in Popular Science's article, "Global Warming: a Controversial Bill, And a Game of Roulette."

Sorry. I found the photo by googling Princeton climate scientists predict warming.

If it was actually MIT then the scenario is still correct but the relevance to the thread title is weakened.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Yes, well, if one reads the article to which I linked and that contains the explanation for what the wheels are for, what precious little relevance there may have been will flag more surely than a post coital penis.

I didn't read the article. I am criticizing the photo.

These authority figures are giving the public a choice between 3C warming and greater than 7C warming, with the probability of something like 5C being likely. That is what the photo implies.

Is that a reasonable prediction? It matters not if they equivocate the prediction in the fine print (if they even do), it does not match the reality of doubling CO2 or the increase of temperature out to 2100. Especially now that climate sensitivities have steadily declined.

I find the photo to be yet another misdirection and exaggeration that is so commonplace in climate change propaganda.

I am disappointed that leading scientists would be willing to expose the public to this sort of garbage.

I didn't read the article. I am criticizing the photo.

Well, just how can you have a credible criticism of the photo when you don't in fact know what it actually depicts? Have you not heard the saying "looks can be deceiving?"

Yes looks can be deceiving. The photo is deceiving.

I will give another example. Marcotte took his doctoral thesis and with the help of Michael Mann he turned it into a hockey stick. He was feted by the press who only had questions about the 20th century portion. Marcotte was happy to comply with interviews for two weeks, agreeing with the latest visual prediction of doom and disaster.

It was only after it was proven to him by skeptics that his work was statistically insignificant, and based on his suspicious methodologies, and cherrypicked data that he admitted that the recent portion was not 'robust', and should not be used for much of anything.

But for two weeks he was quite happy to let the media make false assumptions without correcting them.

This is standard practice. ie 2 meters of SLR by 2100 is 'possible', yet when the story is published it has been turned into 'likely', and no correction is forthcoming. No rebuttal saying that it is in fact highly unlikely.

These types of exaggerations are commonplace. And when someone tries to set the record straight they are dismissed as being 'deniers'. The public is being treated poorly by this advocacy being cloaked as science.

 

[IanC]

Okay. I read the article. It is talking about a proposed carbon tax program that only involves the USA. They have two wheels, one with a probability of about 2.5C warming, and another one with a probability of 5.5C warming. With and without the carbon tax.

Is this reasonable? If this is just the US contribution to global warming, then what is the rest of the globes contribution? Between 25C and 55C? Surely the US contribution is only about a tenth of the total. And most of the rest of the world is not in any big hurry to cut their emissions. Are we really in for 40+ degrees of warming?

You asked me to look at the article. It is much worse than I could imagine. How could you defend it?

I apologise for not realizing just how bad the science was that is depicted in the photo.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Those men are not, and were not when that photo was taken, Princeton scientists. They are, from left to right:

• Mort Webster
• Adam Schlosser
• Ronald Prinn
  
• Sergey Paltsev

They all worked at MIT in 2009 when that photo was taken.

That wheel you see is part of what they called "Climate Change Roulette." You can read about it in Popular Science's article, "Global Warming: a Controversial Bill, And a Game of Roulette."

Sorry. I found the photo by googling Princeton climate scientists predict warming.

If it was actually MIT then the scenario is still correct but the relevance to the thread title is weakened.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Yes, well, if one reads the article to which I linked and that contains the explanation for what the wheels are for, what precious little relevance there may have been will flag more surely than a post coital penis.

I didn't read the article. I am criticizing the photo.

These authority figures are giving the public a choice between 3C warming and greater than 7C warming, with the probability of something like 5C being likely. That is what the photo implies.

Is that a reasonable prediction? It matters not if they equivocate the prediction in the fine print (if they even do), it does not match the reality of doubling CO2 or the increase of temperature out to 2100. Especially now that climate sensitivities have steadily declined.

I find the photo to be yet another misdirection and exaggeration that is so commonplace in climate change propaganda.

I am disappointed that leading scientists would be willing to expose the public to this sort of garbage.

I didn't read the article. I am criticizing the photo.

Well, just how can you have a credible criticism of the photo when you don't in fact know what it actually depicts? Have you not heard the saying "looks can be deceiving?"

Yes looks can be deceiving. The photo is deceiving.

I will give another example. Marcotte took his doctoral thesis and with the help of Michael Mann he turned it into a hockey stick. He was feted by the press who only had questions about the 20th century portion. Marcotte was happy to comply with interviews for two weeks, agreeing with the latest visual prediction of doom and disaster.

It was only after it was proven to him by skeptics that his work was statistically insignificant, and based on his suspicious methodologies, and cherrypicked data that he admitted that the recent portion was not 'robust', and should not be used for much of anything.

But for two weeks he was quite happy to let the media make false assumptions without correcting them.

This is standard practice. ie 2 meters of SLR by 2100 is 'possible', yet when the story is published it has been turned into 'likely', and no correction is forthcoming. No rebuttal saying that it is in fact highly unlikely.

These types of exaggerations are commonplace. And when someone tries to set the record straight they are dismissed as being 'deniers'. The public is being treated poorly by this advocacy being cloaked as science.

Dude, really? You seriously (an ineptly) raised the so-called controversy over Mann's 1998 paper "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries" to make your point when two 2013 studies resoundingly confirmed the accuracy of the "hockey stick?"

• A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
  
• Continental-scale temperature variability during the last two millennia
  
  First look at the scope of this paper. It's very narrow; it's neither more nor less than what's stated in the title and one need not be a scientist or researcher to comprehend as much. Next, look at the the author list for this paper, and it becomes very clear why the scope is so tightly bounded. One would have to be an inveterate conspiracy theorist to genuinely think that many people would willfully risk their livelihoods putting their name, time and effort to something that isn't "rock solid?" If nothing else, that alone militates for one's bothering to very carefully and thoroughly reading and fully understanding the paper's content.
  
  Now go read the paper. I don't need to say a thing about it. It speaks for itself and, given its narrow scope, doesn't say so many things that it becomes difficult (for strong readers/thinkers) to keep them all in mind and in the proper perspective.

If something's come along since 2013 that has resoundingly discredited those two papers and Mann's, by all means, please point me to the papers that do.

• The Ugly Conservative Tactic of Brutally Attacking Individuals, Even Kids, Instead of Ideas

Supplementally:

​

 

[IanC]

Sorry. I found the photo by googling Princeton climate scientists predict warming.

If it was actually MIT then the scenario is still correct but the relevance to the thread title is weakened.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Yes, well, if one reads the article to which I linked and that contains the explanation for what the wheels are for, what precious little relevance there may have been will flag more surely than a post coital penis.

I didn't read the article. I am criticizing the photo.

These authority figures are giving the public a choice between 3C warming and greater than 7C warming, with the probability of something like 5C being likely. That is what the photo implies.

Is that a reasonable prediction? It matters not if they equivocate the prediction in the fine print (if they even do), it does not match the reality of doubling CO2 or the increase of temperature out to 2100. Especially now that climate sensitivities have steadily declined.

I find the photo to be yet another misdirection and exaggeration that is so commonplace in climate change propaganda.

I am disappointed that leading scientists would be willing to expose the public to this sort of garbage.

I didn't read the article. I am criticizing the photo.

Well, just how can you have a credible criticism of the photo when you don't in fact know what it actually depicts? Have you not heard the saying "looks can be deceiving?"

Yes looks can be deceiving. The photo is deceiving.

I will give another example. Marcotte took his doctoral thesis and with the help of Michael Mann he turned it into a hockey stick. He was feted by the press who only had questions about the 20th century portion. Marcotte was happy to comply with interviews for two weeks, agreeing with the latest visual prediction of doom and disaster.

It was only after it was proven to him by skeptics that his work was statistically insignificant, and based on his suspicious methodologies, and cherrypicked data that he admitted that the recent portion was not 'robust', and should not be used for much of anything.

But for two weeks he was quite happy to let the media make false assumptions without correcting them.

This is standard practice. ie 2 meters of SLR by 2100 is 'possible', yet when the story is published it has been turned into 'likely', and no correction is forthcoming. No rebuttal saying that it is in fact highly unlikely.

These types of exaggerations are commonplace. And when someone tries to set the record straight they are dismissed as being 'deniers'. The public is being treated poorly by this advocacy being cloaked as science.

Dude, really? You seriously (an ineptly) raised the so-called controversy over Mann's 1998 paper "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries" to make your point when two 2013 studies resoundingly confirmed the accuracy of the "hockey stick?"

• A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
  
• Continental-scale temperature variability during the last two millennia
  
  First look at the scope of this paper. It's very narrow; it's neither more nor less than what's stated in the title and one need not be a scientist or researcher to comprehend as much. Next, look at the the author list for this paper, and it becomes very clear why the scope is so tightly bounded. One would have to be an inveterate conspiracy theorist to genuinely think that many people would willfully risk their livelihoods putting their name, time and effort to something that isn't "rock solid?" If nothing else, that alone militates for one's bothering to very carefully and thoroughly reading and fully understanding the paper's content.
  
  Now go read the paper. I don't need to say a thing about it. It speaks for itself and, given its narrow scope, doesn't say so many things that it becomes difficult (for strong readers/thinkers) to keep them all in mind and in the proper perspective.

If something's come along since 2013 that has resoundingly discredited those two papers and Mann's, by all means, please point me to the papers that do.

• The Ugly Conservative Tactic of Brutally Attacking Individuals, Even Kids, Instead of Ideas

Supplementally:

​

Hahahaha. Are you a sock puppet of Old Rocks or just copying his stupidity?


First off, I brought up Marcotte's paper, a reworked version of his PHD thesis, that with the help of Mann and Shakun had a hockey stick blade attached to it.

You then linked the same paper as a rebuttal. Classic Old Rocks.

Then you linked PAGES2k. A paper that actually incorporates the withdrawn Gergis paper. It also has problems with its Arctic portion due to the use of upside-down proxies.

At least Pages2k issued a corregium acknowledging the problem, although they did not update the graphs. Unlike Michael Mann who to this day defends his use of the upside-down Tiljander proxies.

Yes, I think you must be Old Rocks in disguise. You slunk away from the wheel of disfortune photo just like he would have done when someone checked his links. You also said Nahle's article had been linked on this board before but you have only been here since 2017. Yup, an Old Rocks sock puppet, necessary because he has trashed his own reputation.

 

[polarbear]

So what exactly is that graph supposed to prove?
That countries like the US and even Germany are "guiltier" than China?
Energy consumption per capita has no correlation with pollution and China is by far the biggest polluter....downtown Beijing:

Downtown Los Angeles:

Downtown Berlin:

Houses in Germany:

And according to this "bio-ethic" crap the people living there (in Freiburg)are accountable (with megabuck$) to China because they use more energy per person than the 14 billion Chinese who for the largest part cook their meals by burning fuel on open smoke&fume belching cook stoves.
What a load of crap, no matter what kind of pseudo erudite verbiage you use to spin that "bio-ethic" yarn.

what exactly is that graph supposed to prove?

It's a chart. It doesn't aim to prove anything. It exists to impart information, not to prove something.

It doesn't aim to prove anything. It exists to impart information, not to prove something.
So what information does it "impart"?
"It" being the energy use per capita. A well known fact, that more US ,German and citizens in western countries use the power at their disposal than those countries who`s inhabitants have to live under primitive conditions is not "information"...no more than if you have no money to spend then you can`t spend any money is "information".
One of my friends just came back from touring rural China where people still shit into ditches...that is information.
In my home town in Germany the methane from the sewage treatment plant is used to power a gas turbine driven generator....that is information
The obvious fact that my hometown uses that power is not "information"
So wtf is the idea of that idiotic graph you posted ?

 

[jc456]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

what isn't logical however, is why, if we have made technology advances, aren't these countries using new technology instead of using carbon based plants? You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body. That makes absolutely no sense.

The thesis is failed. It is a wealth distribution program to punish those who move the technology forward. shame on him and I spit on him.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

what isn't logical however, is why, if we have made technology advances, aren't these countries using new technology instead of using carbon based plants? You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body. That makes absolutely no sense.

The thesis is failed. It is a wealth distribution program to punish those who move the technology forward. shame on him and I spit on him.

What???

Out of all you wrote, only the follow question and the final sentence are coherent and, at least, somewhat clear and certain.

• The thought in the final sentence is what it is, and I have nothing to say about it, for it's merely your stating your opinion.
• Except for the below quoted sentence, I nothing to say about the rest for it's not clear to me what you're trying to say by having written it.

You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body.

AFAIK, cancer grows/emerges/evolves within the corpus rather than being added to it by an external actor. Be that as it may, developing a cure for cancer is a process that has nothing to do with whether cancerous cells are forming within a body, or even one deliberately "adds" it to a body. Indeed, though I don't know specifically how cancer cure testing occurs, but it's not beyond conception that scientists may introduce cancerous cells to otherwise healthy specimens and then apply treatments they think will cure the cancer. Accordingly, it may well be that adding cancer to a body is part of the process of testing potential curative medicines and treatments. Thus, "adding" cancer to a body(s) may very well be how one goes about curing cancer.

Why did I say that? Because the analogy you presented doesn't make sense; however, the sentence is one of the two in your post that itself is coherent, even if the idea it contains is irrational.

 

[flacaltenn]

A posting yesterday on Project Syndicate by Peter Singer, a Princeton University professor of something called "bioethics", attacks President Trump for derailing the globalist pl--, er, for pulling the US out of the Paris Accords. Professor Singer argues that, because Americans and the rest of the industrialized world use more energy per capita than those in the developing world, "fairness" demands we need to use less so that they can use more. We need to stop doing things like traveling for vacation, he says, or using air conditioning. The "savings" in carbon emissions could then be donated to places like the Ivory Coast, removing the carbon deficit preventing the world's poorest from becoming rich like us.

If that seems like a good way to tackle "climate change", you'll cheer Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

You see, since you aren't a bioethicist, you probably don't know that it all boils down to carbon emissions per capita. No one should be able to emit more gas than anyone else. But, unfortunately, the world is divided into nations, which are just the worst when it comes to ensuring global carbon emissions equality. If only there were some small group of people with the power to redistribute energy consumption equally--a group of, oh, I don't know--bioethicists, say, to force an Icelandic truck driver and a Sudanese goat herder to leave the same size carbon footprint--then we'd avoid the catastrophe of climate change.

I ran the numbers, and Professor Singer is full of shit. Using data from a Yale study that compared carbon emitting energy consumption to strength of carbon emission policies by country, I calculated the correlation coefficient between that data and population data to see whether Professor Singer's attack on Donald Trump was something other than a tantrum over the thwarting of the globalist power play. It wasn't.

Here are the different population variables with their respective r-factors:

Population size	-0.0759 ​	there is very little correlation between population size and the size of a country's carbon footprint
Population growth rate	-0.1451​	also very little correlation with a population's annual change
Net population change	-0.1517​	same as above
Population density	0.1033​	negligible correlation
Land area	0.0989​	same as above
Fertility rate	-0.3434​	significant correlation between high fertility and low carbon footprint
Median age	0.3707​	the older the population, the more energy consumed
Urban %	0.3697​	city-dwellers use more energy

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

And here is where it gets interesting:

Good Enviromental Emission Laws	0.3602​	significant correlation between environmental legislation and reduced carbon emissions
Legislation passed in last decade	-0.0579​	but recent policy efforts have been ineffective
Size of migrant population	0.3027​	The more migrants, the more emissions
Migrants as percent of pop.	0.4148​	highest correlation of all between migrants as a percent of population and emissions footprint

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So, the single worst thing we could do is import people from agrarian low carbon producing countries to places where they can enjoy higher consumption levels. (George Soros, who is single-handedly bringing in millions of such to the West, contributes articles to the same website Professor Singer's article appeared). And while wise policies have helped, new policy efforts have failed.

But don't expect Professor Singer to advocate honestly for the good of the planet that we shut off the immigration spigot. Look for him to demonstrate his concern for Mother Earth by attacking President Trump, instead.

data

Back when I was naive leftist UnderGrad --- the dominant memes were along the lines of

The US only has 13% of the World's population -- Yet it controls, uses, or owns ____ % of the World's ________.

This was repeated over and over again in the popular "doomsday" books like the Population Bomb and other full out anti-human alarm ringers.

This IS (as the OP laid out) the CORE of the Paris Agreement. We stepped up to REDISTRIBUTE more checks as our pennance for being gluttonous greedy bastards and bitches. And in FACT --- we DID END up redistributing a whole shitload of goodies to the needy 3rd world. Like our factories, our supply chains and our jobs. It GOT DONE..

And NOW the people were told that no growth, belt-tightening, living with less power and stuff is the "new norm". And that NO growth is GOOD growth. These guys WON -- they DID even out the playing field. Pulled China up by OUR bootstraps. And most of SE Asia and the rest of the world.

We've already seen the redistribution at work. Paris Accord was just another notch in their belts.

 

[flacaltenn]

So what exactly is that graph supposed to prove?
That countries like the US and even Germany are "guiltier" than China?
Energy consumption per capita has no correlation with pollution and China is by far the biggest polluter....downtown Beijing:

Downtown Los Angeles:

Downtown Berlin:

Houses in Germany:

And according to this "bio-ethic" crap the people living there (in Freiburg)are accountable (with megabuck$) to China because they use more energy per person than the 14 billion Chinese who for the largest part cook their meals by burning fuel on open smoke&fume belching cook stoves.
What a load of crap, no matter what kind of pseudo erudite verbiage you use to spin that "bio-ethic" yarn.

what exactly is that graph supposed to prove?

It's a chart. It doesn't aim to prove anything. It exists to impart information, not to prove something.

It doesn't aim to prove anything. It exists to impart information, not to prove something.
So what information does it "impart"?
"It" being the energy use per capita. A well known fact, that more US ,German and citizens in western countries use the power at their disposal than those countries who`s inhabitants have to live under primitive conditions is not "information"...no more than if you have no money to spend then you can`t spend any money is "information".
One of my friends just came back from touring rural China where people still shit into ditches...that is information.
In my home town in Germany the methane from the sewage treatment plant is used to power a gas turbine driven generator....that is information
The obvious fact that my hometown uses that power is not "information"
So wtf is the idea of that idiotic graph you posted ?

Well of course PBear, from an American POView, it shows that America creates much more Food, chemicals and refined petroleum and other products than it needs. But hidden in that "information" is that we SELL or give away most of the excess. We also have a military that uses energy at rate FAR HIGHER than anyone elses military. And provide far more international air travel than any other country. That all USED to add up to leading the world in a lot of things. But anti-growth and anti-business sentiments are gonna fix all that and humble us appropriately..

 

[Crick]

A posting yesterday on Project Syndicate by Peter Singer, a Princeton University professor of something called "bioethics", attacks President Trump for derailing the globalist pl--, er, for pulling the US out of the Paris Accords. Professor Singer argues that, because Americans and the rest of the industrialized world use more energy per capita than those in the developing world, "fairness" demands we need to use less so that they can use more. We need to stop doing things like traveling for vacation, he says, or using air conditioning. The "savings" in carbon emissions could then be donated to places like the Ivory Coast, removing the carbon deficit preventing the world's poorest from becoming rich like us.

If that seems like a good way to tackle "climate change", you'll cheer Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

You see, since you aren't a bioethicist, you probably don't know that it all boils down to carbon emissions per capita. No one should be able to emit more gas than anyone else. But, unfortunately, the world is divided into nations, which are just the worst when it comes to ensuring global carbon emissions equality. If only there were some small group of people with the power to redistribute energy consumption equally--a group of, oh, I don't know--bioethicists, say, to force an Icelandic truck driver and a Sudanese goat herder to leave the same size carbon footprint--then we'd avoid the catastrophe of climate change.

I ran the numbers, and Professor Singer is full of shit. Using data from a Yale study that compared carbon emitting energy consumption to strength of carbon emission policies by country, I calculated the correlation coefficient between that data and population data to see whether Professor Singer's attack on Donald Trump was something other than a tantrum over the thwarting of the globalist power play. It wasn't.

Here are the different population variables with their respective r-factors:

Population size	-0.0759 ​	there is very little correlation between population size and the size of a country's carbon footprint
Population growth rate	-0.1451​	also very little correlation with a population's annual change
Net population change	-0.1517​	same as above
Population density	0.1033​	negligible correlation
Land area	0.0989​	same as above
Fertility rate	-0.3434​	significant correlation between high fertility and low carbon footprint
Median age	0.3707​	the older the population, the more energy consumed
Urban %	0.3697​	city-dwellers use more energy

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

And here is where it gets interesting:

Good Enviromental Emission Laws	0.3602​	significant correlation between environmental legislation and reduced carbon emissions
Legislation passed in last decade	-0.0579​	but recent policy efforts have been ineffective
Size of migrant population	0.3027​	The more migrants, the more emissions
Migrants as percent of pop.	0.4148​	highest correlation of all between migrants as a percent of population and emissions footprint

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So, the single worst thing we could do is import people from agrarian low carbon producing countries to places where they can enjoy higher consumption levels. (George Soros, who is single-handedly bringing in millions of such to the West, contributes articles to the same website Professor Singer's article appeared). And while wise policies have helped, new policy efforts have failed.

But don't expect Professor Singer to advocate honestly for the good of the planet that we shut off the immigration spigot. Look for him to demonstrate his concern for Mother Earth by attacking President Trump, instead.

data

You failed basic statistics and probability, didn't you.

 

[polarbear]

So what exactly is that graph supposed to prove?
That countries like the US and even Germany are "guiltier" than China?
Energy consumption per capita has no correlation with pollution and China is by far the biggest polluter....downtown Beijing:

Downtown Los Angeles:

Downtown Berlin:

Houses in Germany:

And according to this "bio-ethic" crap the people living there (in Freiburg)are accountable (with megabuck$) to China because they use more energy per person than the 14 billion Chinese who for the largest part cook their meals by burning fuel on open smoke&fume belching cook stoves.
What a load of crap, no matter what kind of pseudo erudite verbiage you use to spin that "bio-ethic" yarn.

what exactly is that graph supposed to prove?

It's a chart. It doesn't aim to prove anything. It exists to impart information, not to prove something.

It doesn't aim to prove anything. It exists to impart information, not to prove something.
So what information does it "impart"?
"It" being the energy use per capita. A well known fact, that more US ,German and citizens in western countries use the power at their disposal than those countries who`s inhabitants have to live under primitive conditions is not "information"...no more than if you have no money to spend then you can`t spend any money is "information".
One of my friends just came back from touring rural China where people still shit into ditches...that is information.
In my home town in Germany the methane from the sewage treatment plant is used to power a gas turbine driven generator....that is information
The obvious fact that my hometown uses that power is not "information"
So wtf is the idea of that idiotic graph you posted ?

Well of course PBear, from an American POView, it shows that America creates much more Food, chemicals and refined petroleum and other products than it needs. But hidden in that "information" is that we SELL or give away most of the excess. We also have a military that uses energy at rate FAR HIGHER than anyone elses military. And provide far more international air travel than any other country. That all USED to add up to leading the world in a lot of things. But anti-growth and anti-business sentiments are gonna fix all that and humble us appropriately..

"Well of course PBear, from an American POView, it shows that America creates much more Food, chemicals and refined petroleum and other products than it needs."
Nothing wrong with that, "America produces more than it needs...it would only be wrong if somebody produces more than is needed....and the excess winds up in a garbage dump or as plastic islands floating in the ocean @ (appended below)
If America would produce only what it needs then I would not be able to buy fresh produce in Canada during the winter, or citrus fruit at any time of the year.
Societies evolved to the advanced stage we are at by specializing and industrializing the production of the goods we need. Case in point, the early European textile industry.
Without it we`ld have to resort back to trapping for pelts and raw-hide to make the clothes we need. Making only what "it needs" may work for indigenous village people in a primitive setting but failed miserably on a national scale as we have seen it fail in every communist country that based their economy on that concept.
@Which reminds me how ridiculous this whole "wealth redistribution" accord really is. We are being chastised for being wealthy "polluters" and are supposed to compen$ate countries like China, India or Brazil that are worse than a pigsty :

While we have been doing this in Europe, Canada and the US for as long as I have been an adult:

West Germany inherited the same kind of filthy mess when communist East Germany collapsed. All the years before that the propaganda bureau of the East German Socialist Party have been preaching almost the same crap over the airwaves to West Germans as the IPCC is doing now on a global scale.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Where is the quote from Trump that shows his position on Global Warming?

 

[cnelsen]

You failed basic statistics and probability, didn't you.

Great argument, douche.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yes, well, if one reads the article to which I linked and that contains the explanation for what the wheels are for, what precious little relevance there may have been will flag more surely than a post coital penis.

I didn't read the article. I am criticizing the photo.

These authority figures are giving the public a choice between 3C warming and greater than 7C warming, with the probability of something like 5C being likely. That is what the photo implies.

Is that a reasonable prediction? It matters not if they equivocate the prediction in the fine print (if they even do), it does not match the reality of doubling CO2 or the increase of temperature out to 2100. Especially now that climate sensitivities have steadily declined.

I find the photo to be yet another misdirection and exaggeration that is so commonplace in climate change propaganda.

I am disappointed that leading scientists would be willing to expose the public to this sort of garbage.

I didn't read the article. I am criticizing the photo.

Well, just how can you have a credible criticism of the photo when you don't in fact know what it actually depicts? Have you not heard the saying "looks can be deceiving?"

Yes looks can be deceiving. The photo is deceiving.

I will give another example. Marcotte took his doctoral thesis and with the help of Michael Mann he turned it into a hockey stick. He was feted by the press who only had questions about the 20th century portion. Marcotte was happy to comply with interviews for two weeks, agreeing with the latest visual prediction of doom and disaster.

It was only after it was proven to him by skeptics that his work was statistically insignificant, and based on his suspicious methodologies, and cherrypicked data that he admitted that the recent portion was not 'robust', and should not be used for much of anything.

But for two weeks he was quite happy to let the media make false assumptions without correcting them.

This is standard practice. ie 2 meters of SLR by 2100 is 'possible', yet when the story is published it has been turned into 'likely', and no correction is forthcoming. No rebuttal saying that it is in fact highly unlikely.

These types of exaggerations are commonplace. And when someone tries to set the record straight they are dismissed as being 'deniers'. The public is being treated poorly by this advocacy being cloaked as science.

Dude, really? You seriously (an ineptly) raised the so-called controversy over Mann's 1998 paper "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries" to make your point when two 2013 studies resoundingly confirmed the accuracy of the "hockey stick?"

• A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
  
• Continental-scale temperature variability during the last two millennia
  
  First look at the scope of this paper. It's very narrow; it's neither more nor less than what's stated in the title and one need not be a scientist or researcher to comprehend as much. Next, look at the the author list for this paper, and it becomes very clear why the scope is so tightly bounded. One would have to be an inveterate conspiracy theorist to genuinely think that many people would willfully risk their livelihoods putting their name, time and effort to something that isn't "rock solid?" If nothing else, that alone militates for one's bothering to very carefully and thoroughly reading and fully understanding the paper's content.
  
  Now go read the paper. I don't need to say a thing about it. It speaks for itself and, given its narrow scope, doesn't say so many things that it becomes difficult (for strong readers/thinkers) to keep them all in mind and in the proper perspective.

If something's come along since 2013 that has resoundingly discredited those two papers and Mann's, by all means, please point me to the papers that do.

• The Ugly Conservative Tactic of Brutally Attacking Individuals, Even Kids, Instead of Ideas

Supplementally:

​

Hahahaha. Are you a sock puppet of Old Rocks or just copying his stupidity?


First off, I brought up Marcotte's paper, a reworked version of his PHD thesis, that with the help of Mann and Shakun had a hockey stick blade attached to it.

You then linked the same paper as a rebuttal. Classic Old Rocks.

Then you linked PAGES2k. A paper that actually incorporates the withdrawn Gergis paper. It also has problems with its Arctic portion due to the use of upside-down proxies.

At least Pages2k issued a corregium acknowledging the problem, although they did not update the graphs. Unlike Michael Mann who to this day defends his use of the upside-down Tiljander proxies.

Yes, I think you must be Old Rocks in disguise. You slunk away from the wheel of disfortune photo just like he would have done when someone checked his links. You also said Nahle's article had been linked on this board before but you have only been here since 2017. Yup, an Old Rocks sock puppet, necessary because he has trashed his own reputation.

Look, though I am not a climate scientist, thus not innately familiar with who among them wrote what. Even were I a climate scientist, I have not identified myself here such that anyone knows which of them I be so people can read my writings. Because I have not identified myself as a specific scientist having "portfolio" on climate science topics, I don't get to arbitrarily ridicule the findings of climate scientists, other than by referring to and explicitly identifying -- by linking to it or by paper/book title and author -- the work(s) that have. The same limitations apply to you as well, unless, of course, you care to yield your anonymity, which I'm not aware of your having done.

You have now in two posts referred to people's papers and criticisms of them, yet you've provided not so much as one link that allows any layman reading your remarks to know precisely what writings you mean.

First off, I brought up Marcotte's paper, a reworked version of his PHD thesis, that with the help of Mann and Shakun had a hockey stick blade attached to it.

You then linked the same paper as a rebuttal. Classic Old Rocks.

This is now the second time you've mentioned "Marcotte's" paper. I looked for an did not find a paper by anyone named "Marcotte." At the very least, you could have, upon seeing that I linked to the paper you had in mind -- something you should have done so others would not have to hunt for the thing -- notice the spelling of Shaun Marcott's last name and let us know that you misspelled his name. In the post from which the above quote is excerpted, you remarked upon people having the decency to "own" their mistakes, and yet you don't have the same degree of integrity, not even when evidence of it is laid bare before you.

Then you linked PAGES2k. A paper that actually incorporates the withdrawn Gergis paper. It also has problems with its Arctic portion due to the use of upside-down proxies.

Regarding the withdrawn Gergis paper, yet another document you have not linked to or identified by its title, Joelle Gergis discussed that here: How a single word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking and blog backlash.

Following the early online release of the paper, as the manuscript was being prepared for the journal’s print edition, one of our team spotted a typo in the methods section of the manuscript.

While the paper said the study had used “detrended” data – temperature data from which the longer-term trends had been removed – the study had in fact used raw data. When we checked the computer code, the DETREND command said “FALSE” when it should have said “TRUE”.

Both raw and detrended data have been used in similar studies, and both are scientifically justifiable approaches. The issue for our team was the fact that what was written in the paper did not match what was actually done in the analysis – an innocent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Instead of taking the easy way out and just correcting the single word in the page proof, we asked the publisher to put our paper on hold and remove the online version while we assessed the influence that the different method had on the results....

....[W]e set about rigorously checking and rechecking every step of our study in a bid to dispel any doubts about its accuracy. This included extensive reprocessing of the data using independently generated computer code, three additional statistical methods, detrended and non-detrended approaches, and climate model data to further verify the results.

The mammoth process involved three extra rounds of peer-review and four new peer-reviewers. From the original submission on 3 November, 2011, to the paper’s re-acceptance on 26 April, 2016, the manuscript was reviewed by seven reviewers and two editors, underwent nine rounds of revisions, and was assessed a total of 21 times – not to mention the countless rounds of internal revisions made by our research team and data contributors. One reviewer even commented that we had done “a commendable, perhaps bordering on an insane, amount of work”.

Finally, today, we publish our study again with virtually the same conclusion: the recent temperatures experienced over the past three decades in Australia, New Zealand and surrounding oceans are warmer than any other 30-year period over the past 1,000 years.​

And what did the revised paper show? This:

Comparison of Australasian temperature reconstructions.

​

• Curve Legend:
  • Red: original temperature reconstruction published in the May 2012 version of the study;
  • Green: more recent reconstruction published in Nature Geoscience in April 2013;
  • Black: newly published reconstruction;
  • Orange: observed instrumental temperatures.
• Shading legend
  • Grey shading shows 90% uncertainty estimates of the original 2012 reconstruction;
  • Purple shading shows considerably expanded uncertainty estimates of the revised 2016 version based on four statistical methods.

The recent 30-year warming (orange line) lies outside the range of temperature variability reconstruction (black line) over the past 1,000 years.​

In other words, the very same "hockey stick." In Gergis' words:

[O]bserved temperatures in Australasia have been warmer in the past 30 years than every other 30-year period over the entire millennium (90% confidence based on 12,000 reconstructions, developed using four independent statistical methods and three different data subsets). Importantly, the climate modelling component of our study also shows that only human-caused greenhouse emissions can explain the recent warming recorded in our region.

Our study now joins the vast body of evidence showing that our region, in line with the rest of the planet, has warmed rapidly since 1950, with all the impacts that climate change brings. So far in 2016 we have seen bushfires ravage Tasmania’s ancient World Heritage rainforests, while 93% of the Great Barrier Reef has suffered bleaching amid Australia’s hottest ever sea temperatures – an event made 175 times more likely by climate change. Worldwide, it has never been hotter in our recorded history.​

You slunk away from the wheel of disfortune photo just like he would have done when someone checked his links.

"Slunk away from" the photo? What the hell are you talking about?

• I'm the one who identified the creators' purpose and explanation of the wheels, for which I provided the link so you and everyone else could read it.
• You're the one who grabbed a photo and took to criticizing it and the people in it. Then, after having had made available to you the details about the wheels' raison d'etre, attested to not having read the explanation and puerilely asserted, "I am criticizing the photo." What is the value and virtue of doing that? Anyone can find a photo and, without regard to its context, criticize it or ascribe to it significance(s) it does not and never sought to depict. That is, often enough, what art critics do for a living, but we aren't here discussing art.

Pages2k issued a corregium

If you are going to use sophisticated vocabulary, you could at least correctly spell the words, something that is particularly easy to do if one but pays attention to the mere existence of "squiggles" appearing underneath misspelled words one types.

• corrigendum

Insofar as perfunctoriness and manifestations of it by way of errors, mistakes and oversights are thematically the central charge of the remarks and criticisms of the scholarly writings you and I have been discussing, I think you are one temerarious person.

• You didn't spell Marcott's name correctly.
• You didn't avail yourself of the automated spellcheck feature in whatever web browser/computing device you used to compose your posts.
• You ascribed attributes to the content of a photo that you, at the time (perhaps now too) know a thing about.
• You used the fact of a group of researchers withdrawing a paper (Geris et al) as evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) of there being something wrong with its findings, yet you failed to regard that the authors (1) "owned" their mistakes and subsequently published a revised paper wherein it is shown that the results are the same after their having corrected for the mistakes in the first paper/study.
• You ridiculed me (Old Rocks too, but I'm not familiar enough with his postings to defend him) by implying that the linked content I provided doesn't withstand even the most simplistic scrutiny of merely being read. You used the fact of Gergis et al's paper withdrawal as evidence of my supposed lack of integrity and rigor, yet you gave no credence whatsoever to the due diligence those authors performed in response to finding errors in their original paper, due diligence whereafter the data were found to yield substantively the same outcome.

I realize your phlegmatic "attention to detail" has no bearing on the mistakes others have made; thus I'm not going so far as to invoke notions of "sinning and stoning." That said, you come across as knavishly iniquitous, thus undeserving of the time I've taken to respond to you in this post.

I think you must be Old Rocks in disguise.

Well, you just keep thinking that. It's yet another absurd notion in your mind that won't want for company.

 

[cnelsen]

Our study now joins the vast body of evidence showing that our region, in line with the rest of the planet, has warmed rapidly since 1950, with all the impacts that climate change brings.

How does us sending money to some supranational body (for supposed redistribution) help prevent global warming? The problem is population growth and immigration. What is their argument? Solar panels? I truly don't know.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Our study now joins the vast body of evidence showing that our region, in line with the rest of the planet, has warmed rapidly since 1950, with all the impacts that climate change brings.

How does us sending money to some supranational body (for supposed redistribution) help prevent global warming? The problem is population growth and immigration. What is their argument? Solar panels? I truly don't know.

What? "Sending money?" You lost me there. I don't see anything in the Gergis et al study whereby "sending money" or "solar panels" are offered as support for the findings of their research. Indeed, none of those words/terms appear in the study.

 

[cnelsen]

Our study now joins the vast body of evidence showing that our region, in line with the rest of the planet, has warmed rapidly since 1950, with all the impacts that climate change brings.

How does us sending money to some supranational body (for supposed redistribution) help prevent global warming? The problem is population growth and immigration. What is their argument? Solar panels? I truly don't know.

What? "Sending money?" You lost me there. I don't see anything in the Gergis et al study whereby "sending money" or "solar panels" are offered as support for the findings of their research. Indeed, none of those words/terms appear in the study.

I was referring to the Paris accords.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Our study now joins the vast body of evidence showing that our region, in line with the rest of the planet, has warmed rapidly since 1950, with all the impacts that climate change brings.

How does us sending money to some supranational body (for supposed redistribution) help prevent global warming? The problem is population growth and immigration. What is their argument? Solar panels? I truly don't know.

What? "Sending money?" You lost me there. I don't see anything in the Gergis et al study whereby "sending money" or "solar panels" are offered as support for the findings of their research. Indeed, none of those words/terms appear in the study.

I was referring to the Paris accords.

Oh. Okay.

Frankly, I haven't much to say about the terms upon which the Paris Accords' signatories agreed because none of them is binding. The fact is that signing or not signing the Paris document is nothing more than pandering to popular purports. In my mind, there's to all parties involved more purposefulness in a peacock's promenade than in the Paris Accord. Sign or don't; it changes nothing.

 

[jc456]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

what isn't logical however, is why, if we have made technology advances, aren't these countries using new technology instead of using carbon based plants? You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body. That makes absolutely no sense.

The thesis is failed. It is a wealth distribution program to punish those who move the technology forward. shame on him and I spit on him.

What???

Out of all you wrote, only the follow question and the final sentence are coherent and, at least, somewhat clear and certain.

• The thought in the final sentence is what it is, and I have nothing to say about it, for it's merely your stating your opinion.
• Except for the below quoted sentence, I nothing to say about the rest for it's not clear to me what you're trying to say by having written it.

You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body.

AFAIK, cancer grows/emerges/evolves within the corpus rather than being added to it by an external actor. Be that as it may, developing a cure for cancer is a process that has nothing to do with whether cancerous cells are forming within a body, or even one deliberately "adds" it to a body. Indeed, though I don't know specifically how cancer cure testing occurs, but it's not beyond conception that scientists may introduce cancerous cells to otherwise healthy specimens and then apply treatments they think will cure the cancer. Accordingly, it may well be that adding cancer to a body is part of the process of testing potential curative medicines and treatments. Thus, "adding" cancer to a body(s) may very well be how one goes about curing cancer.

Why did I say that? Because the analogy you presented doesn't make sense; however, the sentence is one of the two in your post that itself is coherent, even if the idea it contains is irrational.

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants? Really, that is difficult for you to understand eh? Hmm you then sir are fking stupid