Category: Uncategorized

Uncategorized 25 Jun 2017

“Climate Risks” as conclusive as the link between Smoking and Lung cancer?

via Trust, yet verify
http://ift.tt/2kf6j5P

Via the Cliscep post “Don’t call me an alarmist,” says alarmist, I landed on this livescience article: Treading the Fine Line Between Climate Talk and Alarmism. It is an op-ed written by Sarah E. Myhre about climate change communication and her wish not being called an alarmist.

One thing that caught my attention in the op-ed was this statement:

We would never fault an oncologist for informing patients about the cancer risks that come with smoking. Why would we expect Earth scientists to be any different, when we’re just as certain?

It is not clear from the text what we should expect from those Earth scientists. Luckily, the links goes to an article in Scientific American, titled “Climate Risks as Conclusive as Link between Smoking and Lung Cancer”. So apparently, she means that the Earth scientists know as much from climate risks as medical scientists about the link between smoking and lung cancer…

It is just another variation on the the doctor’s analogy. In most cases, it goes like this: “Do you go to a dentist when you have a heart condition”, with the implication that we should listen to climate scientists when it comes to the Earth’s climate. Not much difference here. It is based on the assumption that climate science is on par with medical science. Which is utterly ridiculous when comparing the history of both sciences. Also, the subject of study in climate sciences severely limits direct attributions.

From this article it is also not really clear why those Earth scientists are so certain. The only thing that comes close is this:

The evidence is overwhelming. Temperatures are going up. Springs are arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Seas are rising. Rainfall and drought patterns are changing. Heat waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The oceans are acidifying.

Sure, but this doesn’t prove that there are “climate risks”. It is only evidence of increasing temperatures and a rising CO₂ level.

It continues:

“The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases. Physicians, cardiovascular scientists, public health experts and others all agree smoking causes cancer,” the AAAS wrote in its report, “What We Know.” [pdf]

Two paragraphs later, the AAAS chief executive seemed to be so sure that he wants to move the debate to “exactly what we should do about it”.

No definition is given of what they mean with “consensus”. My guess from the second quote is that there is a consensus on the fact that humans emit greenhouse gases and these have an influence on the temperature of the Earth. Which I am very sure exists.

The only problem is that this consensus is rather trivial. It is a consensus among skeptics and alarmists alike. It surely doesn’t prove any “climate risks”. It is also not something that would requires moving the debate to “what we should do” about climate change. As far as I know, there is no consensus on the “climate risks” caused by our emissions.

That there is a consensus on rising temperatures by our emissions, doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a consensus on “climate risks” by our emissions. It looks that they inflated the consensus to something it isn’t.

Luckily, there is a link to that “What we know”-report. I assumed that more information would be given on exactly what is known in their “What is know”-report.

No such luck.

This is how the introduction ends:

It is not the purpose of this paper to explain why this disconnect between scientific knowledge and public perception has occurred. Nor are we seeking to provide yet another extensive review of the scientific evidence for climate change. Instead, we present three key messages for every American about climate change:

These are the three “key messages” that they explain in detail:

Climate scientists agree: Climate change is happening here and now.
We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.
The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.

Basically, this “What we know”-report isn’t about what we know, but about “what the authors want Americans to know”…

A lot could be said about those three key messages, but I was specifically interested in those “Climate Risks” that are as “Conclusive as the Link between Smoking and Lung Cancer” as the Scientific America article claims. What is said about that in the report?

That sentence was just copied from the report, followed by (some of these were also copied into the Scientific American article):

Physicians, cardiovascular scientists, public health experts, and others all agree smoking causes cancer. And this consensus among the health community has convinced most Americans that the health risks from smoking are real. A similar consensus now exists among climate scientists, a consensus that maintains that climate change is happening and that human activity is the cause. The National Academy of Sciences, for example, says that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

That consensus is not on “climate riks” as was claimed in the Scientific American article, but on “climate change is happening and that human activity is the cause” or more specifically “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.” as presented by the National Academy of Sciences. Which is not exactly the same as “Climate Risks”. I have no doubt that the National Academy of Sciences endorses this statement, but this could also be said of many/most of the skeptics.

So again, the question is what is it exactly what those scientists agree on? And is that the same as what they are trying to prove?

Reading that paragraph, I start to get the impression that the authors of the report are not claiming that the evidence is as strong as the link between smoking and cancer, but that their consensus is as strong (in number?) as that of the medical scientists on the link between smoking and cancer…

via Trust, yet verify http://ift.tt/2kf6j5P

June 25, 2017 at 04:15PM

Uncategorized 25 Jun 2017

Trump To Call For U.S. ‘Dominance’ in Global Energy Production

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Donald Trump will tout surging U.S. exports of oil and natural gas during a week of events aimed at highlighting the country’s growing energy dominance.

The president also plans to emphasize that after decades of relying on foreign energy supplies, the U.S. is on the brink of becoming a net exporter of oil, gas, coal and other energy resources.

As with previous White House policy-themed weeks, such as a recent one focusing on infrastructure, the framing is designed to draw attention to Trump’s domestic priorities and away from more politically treacherous matters such as multiple investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

With “Energy Week,” Trump is returning to familiar territory — and to the coal, oil, and gas industries on which he’s already lavished attention. Trump’s first major policy speech on the campaign trail, delivered in the oil drilling hotbed of North Dakota in 2016, focused on his plans for unleashing domestic energy production. The issue has also been a major focus during Trump’s first five months in office, as he set in motion the reversal of an array of Obama-era policies that discourage both the production and consumption of fossil fuels.

Plans for the week were described by senior White House officials speaking on condition of anonymity because the details hadn’t yet been formally announced.

Exports Equal Influence

Trump is set to deliver a speech at the Energy Department on Thursday focused almost entirely on energy exports — describing how the foreign sale of U.S. natural gas, oil and coal helps strengthen the country’s influence globally, bolster international alliances, and help stabilize global markets. Energy Secretary Rick Perry may touch on similar themes when he speaks Tuesday with analysts and executives at the U.S. Energy Information Administration conference in Washington.

“The fact that we’re no longer in the age of energy scarcity — that we’re in the age of energy abundance — positions the United States in a totally different place,” said Dave Banks, a special assistant to the president for international energy. “This gives access to affordable, reliable energy in the United States, and gives the U.S. a major competitive advantage.”

The focus on exports dovetails with Trump’s policy priorities, including improving the balance of trade, rebuilding heavy manufacturing and modernizing infrastructure, said Benjamin Salisbury, a senior energy and natural resources analyst with FBR & Co. The Trump administration seems to appreciate the synergy between extractive industries and manufacturing, Salisbury said, with cheap energy powering factories that are in turn churning out the equipment used to produce and export those resources.

Crude Ban Lifted

With U.S. oil production booming, former President Barack Obama signed a law lifting a decades-old ban on most crude exports in December 2015. Since then, the U.S. has exported more than 157 million barrels of crude to countries other than Canada, which had been exempted from the export ban.

The federal government has also authorized 21 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas to be liquefied and sent to countries that don’t have free trade agreements with the U.S. Since starting up last year, Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana — the first major facility sending shale gas overseas — has shipped more than 100 cargoes of LNG to countries including Mexico, China and Turkey.

Trump is set to talk about opportunities for growth, including in sales of coal to Europe and Asia. A recent increase in the production of metallurgical coal used in steel manufacturing has helped East Coast terminals ship more of the resource overseas.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

June 25, 2017 at 02:15PM

Uncategorized 25 Jun 2017

Scientific Consensus Up In Smoke: ‘Big Bang Theory Is Wrong, Basic Maths Is Incorrect’

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Stephen Hawking’s ideas about the origins of the universe — which have long been at the centre of physics and cosmology — are wrong, says one of his closest friends.

Professor Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, has long questioned Hawking’s vision of the Big Bang, when space, time and matter are thought to have burst into existence.

Now he has published research suggesting that the basic maths behind Hawking’s views is incorrect and that science must rethink the origins of the universe.

“Our research implies that we either should look for another picture to understand the very early universe, or that we have to rethink the most elementary models of quantum gravity,” said Job Feldbrugge, one of Turok’s co-authors.

Hawking’s views date to the 1980s, when he and James Hartle published mathematical research suggesting that the universe emerged smoothly from an infinitesimally small point.

However, in a paper entitled No Smooth Beginning for Spacetime, Turok and his colleagues re-examined Hawking’s work using new mathematical techniques to show that the energies within such a universe would be so wild and fluctuating that it would immediately destroy itself.

The maths Turok used was not around when Hawking produced his theories, he said.

Turok, who was once a professor of applied maths and theoretical physics working with Hawking at Cambridge, offered a new theory for the universe: “the Big Bounce”. This suggests the universe is locked in a perpetual cycle of big bangs in which it expands, then contracts to a tiny point before exploding outwards again.