490 replies to this topic

[Rogerdodger]

Climate skeptics more eco-friendly than global-warming alarmists: study finds

Skeptics more likely to recycle, ride bus than those 'highly concerned' about climate.

Published in the April edition of the Journal of Environmental Psychology, the one-year study, entitled “Believing in climate change but not behaving sustainably", broke 600 participants into three groups based on their level of concern about climate change: “highly concerned,” “cautiously worried,” and “skeptical.

”The “highly concerned” cluster was “most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the ‘Skeptical’ opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors,” the researchers concluded.

Meanwhile, Paris burns and in the US the far-left is pushing “Green New Deal” legislation, which could become the largest expansion of government in decades.

 

(Isn't this what AGW has always been about anyway; Total control and regulation on all levels?)

 

Speaking of “Believing in climate change but not behaving sustainably"...

Superstar rapper Drake, who rails against climate change, buys massive private jet...

 

Edited by Rogerdodger, 11 May 2019 - 01:25 PM.

[Rich C]

Climate skeptics more eco-friendly than global-warming alarmists: study finds

Skeptics more likely to recycle, ride bus than those 'highly concerned' about climate.

Published in the April edition of the Journal of Environmental Psychology, the one-year study, entitled “Believing in climate change but not behaving sustainably", broke 600 participants into three groups based on their level of concern about climate change: “highly concerned,” “cautiously worried,” and “skeptical.

”The “highly concerned” cluster was “most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the ‘Skeptical’ opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors,” the researchers concluded.

Meanwhile, Paris burns and in the US the far-left is pushing “Green New Deal” legislation, which could become the largest expansion of government in decades.

 

(Isn't this what AGW has always been about anyway; Total control and regulation on all levels?)

 

 

I think your bias is showing.  The reason that the "highly concerned" may favor government policy solutions is because global warming is a big problem and requires big solutions, and big solutions are not likely to come from individual actions.

 

But, in the same issue of the Journal of Environmental Psychology, we have this article, which produces the opposite result from your article above:

 

 

Do environmental concern and future orientation predict metered household electricity use?

- More environmentally concerned and future-oriented persons use less electricity.

Abstract

Do individuals' environmental attitudes and future orientation predict actual energy consumption? Little is known about the answer to this fundamental question because previous research has relied on self-reported behaviour, which might be prone to social desirability. Therefore, the present study combines survey data with metered data on actual electricity use. Environmental concern is measured by attitudinal items, future orientation by a short version of the Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) scale as well as a behaviour-based subjective discount rate. Results did not reveal any direct correlations between discount rates and electricity use but mediation analyses suggested small indirect effects. Environmental concern and CFC, however, was positively and considerably related to electricity use. Furthermore, there was a large gender difference, with women using about 23% less electricity than men. This study provides evidence that households' environmental attitudes and future orientation are correlated with actual energy consumption levels, and thus lends support to corresponding educational programmes.

 

https://www.scienced...272494418303189

 

 

Now to the point that government policy solutions do work, and work in big ways, consider government mandated fuel efficiency standards:

 

 

Saving money and cutting pollution

Before Congress mandated the first CAFE standards in 1975, the average American car got about 13.5 miles per gallon. By 2016, fuel economy had roughly doubled to 25 miles per gallon.

To get a sense of what that means, if Americans kept driving exactly as much as they do today but operated pre-CAFE gas guzzlers, the average U.S. household would spend nearly US$2,000 more on gasoline each year. And annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would jump by 1 billion tons. Economists debate how much damage these emissions cause, but conventional estimates peg the cost at $37 billion per year.

 

Does CAFE deserve credit? Yes, at least partly. Historically, the average fuel economy of vehicles in the U.S. has closely tracked the minimum required by law. Fuel economy was stagnant before CAFE, then increased rapidly in lockstep with the law as CAFE standards phased in over 15 years.

 

http://theconversati...ve-worked-94529

 

 

So, the fact that "highly concerned" with the environment and global warming favor government policy solutions is no surprise, because they work, and they work on a massive scale. 

 

And, according to my first article, those more concerned with the environment use less electricity according to actual metered results, than those who are less concerned, going against your article which is not based on metered results which are the most reliable.

Edited by Rich C, 12 May 2019 - 08:20 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

Meanwhile, the "expert's" climate models from the past decades are still wrong and Al Gore, et al., still fly in their private jets preaching AGW.

[Rich C]

Meanwhile, the "expert's" climate models from the past decades are still wrong and Al Gore, et al., still fly in their private jets preaching AGW.

 

Define "wrong".  Who cares if climate models from past decades are wrong, and for what definition of wrong do you speak?

 

I spent a decade managing corporate datacenters for fortune 500 corporations, and forecast modelling was used twice a year to place as precisely as possible when a multi-million dollar mainframe upgrade would be needed.  I probably have a lot more experience with model forecasting than the vast majority of folks on this site, possibly the most of any user on the site.

 

A model usually is a simple simulation of a complex environment.  Forecast results are not expected to be precisely accurate.  Sample sizes are calculated to give results within certain confidence intervals.  The other thing is that for very complex environments, models are improved over time.  If actual results do not track with model prediction, analysis is performed to determine why, and additional factors are added to the model to make it more accurate.  It is to be expected that models from decades ago are not as accurate as models of today, which have been continuously improved.

 

So, what you describe may be accurate, but it is irrelevant to the discussion.  What is relevant is the more recent model forecast and actual experience.

[hhh]

An important part of modelling is knowing when the system is far too chaotic to model. "Climate scientists" will never admit that this is the case with their chosen field. Forecasting resource requirements of a business is trivial compared to climate.

[Rich C]

An important part of modelling is knowing when the system is far too chaotic to model. "Climate scientists" will never admit that this is the case with their chosen field. Forecasting resource requirements of a business is trivial compared to climate.

 

Do you have any responsible article that discusses what the limits of "far too chaotic to model" really are?  Define "far to chaotic to model".

 

On the other hand, if the results of climate change are dire for the future, and the cause is man made, then there is something, or many things that we can do about it.  Would you rather that we just throw up our hands and do nothing?

 

Regarding computer performance and capacity modelling, I agree that the model of a computer system is much simpler than the model of a global climate.  But the process of prepping for the exercise is similar.  You gather the data, formulate a baseline that is representative of where we are now, look at growth rates of the constituent factors that affect the outcome over time, grind the growth rates on to the baseline in the model and achieve the forecast a various future points in time along with the confidence intervals within which most observations should fall in the future (85% or 90% or what you select, which backs into the sample size and variability (std. deviation) of the sample.

 

As I say, what is your other plan?  You can use the best tool we have and understand it has some limits and shortcomings on accuracy, but is still useful.  Or throw up your hands and say we can't do anything because forecast modelling is not perfect in highly complex and variable models?

[Rogerdodger]

Here's a clue to what is behind this Climate fraud:

 

The solution is always spreading the wealth around thru TAXATION of producer countries, thus "deliberately weakening them from within."

 

Global Cooling in the 1970's: More taxation

Global Warming in the 1980's: More Taxation

Climate Change in the 2000's: More taxation

But "Contradictions do not exist. Check your premises"

 

 

Enough CLIMATE FEAR must be cultivated in the populace that they give up their individualism and freedom to this new world order,  which is our only savior. (ALTHOUGH WE WILL ALL BE DEAD IN 12 YEARS ANYWAY.)  :-)

 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels~ The Big Lie

 

 

Collectivism, socialism, communism and Centralized Global control are our only hope. Global Citizens is a movement.

Massive immigration and invasion on a worldwide scale is part of the dissolution of national sovereignty.

Historic climate records have been "readjusted". Thermometer "Hockey sticks" have been invented.

 

 

George Soros Fears Losing Bet Big on Liberal Democracy.

Merkel Confronts Defining Moment as Global Order Realigns.

Pledge of Allegiance for oath to 'global society'.

Hungary passes 'STOP Soros' laws, defying EU and rights groups

Developing countries make up the G77, to keep immigration issues on the “global agenda,”

Group of 77 at the United Nations

 

Contradictions do not exist.

Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.

You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

 

Taxing people has never changed the climate.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 14 May 2019 - 10:52 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”

The Peculiar Blindness of Experts

Credentialed authorities are comically bad at predicting the future while declaring faith in science and the undisputed primacy of facts.
 
Stanford biologist Paul R.  Ehrlich was one such doomsday prophet who was rewarded quite well for selling fear. He amassed an enormous following and received prestigious awards.

 In his 1968 best seller, The Population Bomb, Ehrlich insisted that it was too late to prevent a doomsday apocalypse.  

In the worst-case scenario, famine rages across the planet as hundreds of millions would starve to death within a decade.. Russia, China, and the United States are dragged into nuclear war, and the resulting environmental degradation soon extinguishes the human race. In the “cheerful” scenario, population controls begin. Famine spreads, and countries teeter, but the major death wave ends in the mid-1980s. Only half a billion or so people die of starvation.

Ehrlich's prophecy got smoked. In the 1960s, 50 out of every 100,000 global citizens died annually from famine; by the 1990s, that number was 2.6. Ehrlich’s starvation predictions were almost comically bad, so Ehrlich doubled down in another book, with another prediction that would prove untrue.

Unfortunately, the world’s most prominent specialists are rarely held accountable for their predictions, so we continue to rely on them even when their track records make clear that we should not.

In 1984, psychologist and political scientist Philip E. Tetlock began a 20 year study to test expert political and economic predictions from 284 highly educated experts who averaged more than 12 years of experience in their specialties.

The result: The experts were, by and large, horrific forecasters. Their areas of specialty, years of experience, and (for some) access to classified information made no difference. They were bad at short-term forecasting and bad at long-term forecasting. They were bad at forecasting in every domain. When experts declared that future events were impossible or nearly impossible, 15 percent of them occurred nonetheless. When they declared events to be a sure thing, more than one-quarter of them failed to transpire.

 

As the Danish proverb warns, “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”

Edited by Rogerdodger, 19 May 2019 - 10:29 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

GLOBAL WARMING SNOW "EXPERT" SAYS: ..."NEVER-MIND."

 

May 21, 2019
Denver Sees Biggest Late May Snow In 44 Years
Only several days ahead of Memorial Day weekend -- the unofficial start of summer -- heavy snow pounded the Denver area Monday evening into Tuesday morning.
The average date for last snowfall is April 27.
Several locations accumulated more than a foot of snow by Tuesday morning. Black Forest was clobbered by 20 inches and Peyton was buried by 18 inches.
Thirteen states received measurable snowfall early this week.

DENVER RECORD COLD... tied the record low temperature for May 21
The record “coldest maximum” for May 21 is 40 degrees set 128 years ago in 1891. It’s possible that record could also be challenged.

 

This reminds me of the HEADLINES: IN RECENT YEARS:

Squaw Valley USA to Open For Skiing 4th of July Weekend
Mammoth Will Stay Open Through July 4 - NBC
Four Resorts Open for Skiing on 4th of July - Ski Mag
California resort announces plans to keep slopes open til July 4

Where to Ski (Yes, on Snow) this Fourth of July Weekend - Men's Journal

 

Edited by Rogerdodger, 21 May 2019 - 06:30 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

Joseph Goebbels, you were right!

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

 

Climate Myopia is destroying our youth, capitalism, and mankind's future.

 

Women who refuse to have babies -- to save the planet!

Young people blame 'climate change' for their small savings!

Some blame the feeling that they may not have a future to save for.

Someone is  filling their minds with messages of "the world is ending" as soon as they enter Kindergarten, with devastating effects.
Record drug abuse, despair, hopelessness, crime and suicide by our young is the consequence.

88% of millennials — a higher percentage than any other age group — accept that climate change is happening, and 69% say it will impact them in their lifetimes. Engulfed in a constant barrage of depressing news stories, many young people are skeptical about saving for an uncertain future.

“The weather systems are already off, and I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to be a little apocalyptic.”

(Science shows us that the climate has changed since Day One!
But a lack of historical climate knowledge, along with climate hysteria leads to Climate Myopia (Short-sightedness).)

Mental-health issues affecting young adults and adolescents in the U.S. have increased significantly in the past decade.
The number of individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 reporting symptoms of major depression increased 52% from 2005 to 2017, while older adults did not experience any increase in psychological stress at this time.  72% say their emotional well-being is affected by the inevitability of climate change.

"People will faint from fear and anxiety over what is coming upon the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken."

 

Edited by Rogerdodger, 23 May 2019 - 11:46 AM.