People don't put a high value on climate protection

Oct 23, 2013

(Phys.org) —People are bad at getting a grip on collective risks. Climate change is a good example of this: the annual climate summits have so far not led to specific measures. The reason for this is that people attach greater value to an immediate material reward than to investing in future quality of life.

Therefore, cooperative behaviour in climate protection must be more strongly associated with short-term incentives such as rewards or being held in high esteem.

Would you rather have €40 or save the climate? When the question is put in such stark terms, the common sense answer is obviously: "stop !" After all, we are well-informed individuals who act for the common good and, more particularly, for the good of future generations. Or at least that's how we like to think of ourselves.

Unfortunately, the reality is rather different. Immediate rewards make our brains rejoice and when such a reward beckons we're happy to behave cooperatively. But if achieving a common goal won't be rewarded until a few weeks have gone by, we are rather less euphoric and less cooperative. And if, instead of , we're offered the prospect of a benefit for future generations, our enthusiasm for fair play wanes still further.

An international team of researchers led by Manfred Milinski from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology has shown how poorly we manage collective risk. "Our experiment is based on an essay which Thomas Schelling, the Nobel laureate in economics, wrote back in 1995", explains Milinski. Schelling pointed out that it was today's generation which would have to make the efforts for climate protection, while it would be future generations who would gain the benefits. So the people of the present have little motivation actually to do anything. Does this gloomy theory withstand experimental scrutiny?

To find out, the researchers had to convert this problem into a simple experimental situation. They had the participants play a modified public goods game. Such games are very common in behavioural economics and always follow the same pattern. The participants receive a certain amount of money and are invited to donate a proportion of it over a number of rounds. The donated money is doubled and this amount is divided equally between the players. Anything which was not donated goes directly in the player's pocket. The most profitable behaviour in such games is to donate nothing at all and simply benefit from the altruism of the other players.

The researchers modified the rules to incorporate averting impending climate change into the game. Each player received a starting fund of €40 and, playing over ten rounds, was able to decide how much of it to keep or donate. The donated money was invested in a climate change advertising campaign and was thus a simulated investment in climate protection. There were also bonus payments: those groups which donated more than half of their total fund were symbolically able to avoid dangerous climate change and were paid an additional €45 per participant. If the group donated less, all the players had a 90% probability of losing their endowment.

Three scenarios were devised to model the fact that the benefits of saving the climate are only felt in the future. Players from successful groups were paid their endowment either on the day after the experiment (scenario 1) or seven weeks later (scenario 2). In scenario 3, the endowment was not paid out to the players at all, but was instead invested in planting oak trees and thereby in climate protection. Over their lifetime, the trees will absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and their wood will be a valuable building material for future generations.

However, not one of the eleven groups which was offered the prospect of planting oak trees achieved the donation target. On average, just €57 were paid into the climate account instead the objective of €120. That's less than half of the target amount. In the first scenario, seven out of ten groups were successful, the participants donating on average €108, while the players in the second scenario still donated €83 (four out of ten groups were successful). "The result of our experiment paints a gloomy picture of the future", summarises Milinski. "We were unfortunately able to confirm Schelling's prediction - it's a disaster."

Climate change is the largest public goods game that has ever been played and the whole of humanity are its players. The problem is that while we are now making the payments, the fruits of our efforts will only be enjoyed very much later and they will be shared among the whole of humanity. We ourselves or our children will thus benefit only very slightly from any restrictions we place on our lives today and our motivation actually to do something is correspondingly low.

These results make it clear that if people are to invest in climate protection, they must have short-term incentives to do so. "It's not enough simply to point to the benefits will enjoy", says Jochem Marotzke from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the authors of the study. "Climate protection will only be effective if the people making the effort will also be able to obtain a short-term material benefit from doing so, for instance by exporting -friendly technology."

Explore further: US proposes stricter ozone limits

More information: Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game, Jennifer Jacquet, Kristin Hagel, Christoph Hauert, Jochem Marotzke, Torsten Röhl, and Manfred Milinski, Nature Climate Change, 20 October 2013.

Related Stories

Playing games with the climate

May 31, 2013

Gábor Kutasi of the Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary, has applied game theory to the problem of climate change to help him analyse the relationships between international players on the world stage, occurrence and ...

Recommended for you

Education is key to climate adaptation

5 hours ago

Given that some climate change is already unavoidable—as just confirmed by the new IPCC report—investing in empowerment through universal education should be an essential element in climate change adaptation ...

India court slams Delhi's worsening air pollution

15 hours ago

India's environment court has slammed the government over the capital's horrendous air pollution, which it said was "getting worse" every day, and ordered a string of measures to bring it down.

User comments : 65

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
2.1 / 5 (40) Oct 23, 2013
So would you have the government take $100 and give it to their cronies, to combat Global Warming, which by the way has stalled for the last 15 years or so. BTW, the cronies are Al Gore and his bunch....the same ones who fly private jets, drive monster cars, eat endangered animals, live in several mansions. But hey.... they SAY they care about the environment and YOU can afford to give them $100.

Just remember that Progressives wrote the Climate Change Models.... which don't match reality.... and that Progressives wrote Obamacare and we all know how that turned out....
NikFromNYC
2.1 / 5 (33) Oct 23, 2013
Gore's six fireplace palace:
http://directorbl...-of.html

Climategate 101: "For your eyes only...Don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone....Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that." - Phil "Climategate" Jones e-mail to Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann

ANY "STUDY" THAT WILLFULLY IGNORES THE DIRECT EFFECT OF PUBLIC REALIZATION OF BOTH THE BIGGEST EXAMPLES OF HYPOCRISY OF ALL TIME AND THE BIGGEST FRAUD SINCE THE TROJAN WAR SUFFERS NOT JUST FROM OMITTED VARIABLE BIAS BUT SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY: CORRUPTION.
paulhtaylor81
3.3 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2013
Sad. We are comfortable participating in harming the planet (a beautiful home) but won't contemplate modifying our behavior. We were all born on this earth that generously provides everything we need to survive. It doesn't ask for payment in return-as it maintains itself. We are surrounded by natural art and remarkable systems of geology, chemistry, vegetation and so much more. We have been programmed to treat it like an insignificant ball of junk. We are truly selfish.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (33) Oct 23, 2013
paul, you and everybody else knows very well that your statement only really applies to those billions of people still suffering from poverty in developing nations, and you and everybody who accepts that 1+1=2 knows that policy-based energy rationing will thus logically harm the environment.

Gorebots ("Climate Communicators") are cultists who have been convinced to blanket the Net with dummy statements like your own.

Wow, this is the first post ever from your account. Are you a real person?
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (29) Oct 23, 2013
Hey, John, Al_Gore and Captain_Planet liked your comment lamenting those whose opinion of Global Warming amplification theory has plunged since Climategate so much that they gave it five stars. Hey Al and Captain, are you real users reading the contents of posts here?

http://www.physor...activity

AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
AL_GORE ARE YOU A REAL PERSON RATING THESE COMMENTS?
dogbert
2 / 5 (32) Oct 23, 2013
Progressives develop studies to determine how to get people to support a progressive agenda.

What is truly sad is that they dress it up with a lab coat and call it science.

People will gladly contribute to the welfare of others and do this frequently. They do not care to participate in a progressive redistribution scheme.
sstritt
1.9 / 5 (30) Oct 23, 2013
1- CO2 does not drive the climate
2- Vikings settled Greenland a thousand years ago. They raised livestock. They grew barley. They named their new home GREENLAND. Their graves are now frozen in the permafrost.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (32) Oct 23, 2013
The comments/ratings here and on news sites, blogs and social media have been exposed to such a ridiculous level of semi-automated artifice that along with the bile-spitting treatment of newbie skeptical questions on AGW enthusiast sites, are in fact *the* strongest variable that this study claims to be concerned with. A great old school PR machine tried to treat the Net like a classic AstroTurf-vulnerable media market, but the inhumanity of it all set off conservative BS detectors worldwide once Climategate sent them to skeptical blogs and books, and now the next batch of investigative journalistic popular books that summarize the crazy frauds of 2013 (i.e. Marcott's fake blade hockey stick that Mann celebrated like mad and Cook's insane "confirmation" of already debunked 97% consensus claim), well, doubling down on feigned naïveté now forever marks any public supporter as an accessory to public fraud.

Enabling scientists in *all* fields deserve a great blow to their reputations.
Poj
2.8 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2013
The planet doesn't care if you are liberal or conservative - or anything at all about what you believe or don't believe. All the money on earth will not stop the planet from changing - it is not a static system. All we can do is change our own behavior, which is sadly not likely since we would rather fight about everything than do anything. Bummer.
Eikka
2.1 / 5 (26) Oct 23, 2013
Would you rather have €40 or save the climate? When the question is put in such stark terms, the common sense answer is obviously: "stop climate change!"


Oh if it would cost only €40

For many people who are already in poverty it costs them their jobs and homes, because when everyone decides to blow their €40 to build a big pillar so the sky doesn't fall down, they're not spending it on the services and products offered by the lower classes.

The middle classes just don't feel the effect because they aren't spending 85% of their income on fuel, food and housing. Do you think the poor can afford to buy solar panels?
Egleton
1.7 / 5 (19) Oct 23, 2013
The real problem here is fragile egos.
The map is not the terrain.
Ask yourself why is there any emotional baggage to any model? Because our model making left brain houses the ego which is trapped in a hall of mirrors. More about what we know, about what we know >>>
If the mirrors are smashed the fragile ego is exposed.
If our model of reality is wrong, rest assured our egos will survive.
The greater the emotion the more fragile the ego.
Which has more value; your ego or the planet?
Eikka
2 / 5 (23) Oct 23, 2013
Here's the problem of the experiment:

The donated money was invested in a climate change advertising campaign and was thus a simulated investment in climate protection.


So actually, the money was invested in talking about climate protection instead of actually doing anything. In other words, it was being wasted and the participants knew that.

If there's a fire, the least useful person is the one who keeps yelling "fire! fire! there's a fire!" while other people are forming a bucket chain.
deatopmg
2 / 5 (29) Oct 23, 2013
Humanity already spends $359 B/yr (http://www.thegwp...arming/) or about $50/yr for every man, women, and child on climate related projects. These parasites and the rest of the warming cultists are not satisfied, they want even more.

I think that most people already suspect that the global warming business is being run by a bunch of snake oil salesmen aiming to get rich off of the scheme, like algore.

@Eikka - right on. the poor are about to get screwed even more by these self proclaimed do gooders.
tadchem
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2013
An undercurrent to this is that despite the fact that years ago far more people believed that climate change (then called 'global warming') was a serious problem, the continued stentorian publicity, activism, money and attention lavished on the issue seems to have actually alienated the more casual adherents to the thesis.
Perhaps the lack of cooperation on the part of the planet in terms of fulfilling the predictions of the climatologists has created the illusion of 'false alarms' as in Aesop's 'boy who cried wolf' morality tale.
Bookbinder
3.1 / 5 (13) Oct 23, 2013
It's time to shove the goody2shoes routine which hasn't been a hit and switch to the fact that climate change won't just be catastrophic for the planet, it will so wreck the global economy that nobody's 401K will survive it. I seriously doubt that any fossil investment made today will payoff over the 30 years that will be needed.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (18) Oct 23, 2013
(i.e. Marcott's fake blade hockey stick that Mann celebrated like mad and Cook's insane "confirmation" of already debunked 97% consensus claim),


Yes, that would be the same "fake" hockey stick that the BEST study also found - which was funded by the ideologically challenged Koch brothers and had on it's panel the denialist's darling Judith Curry and former skeptic Richard Muller. In other words the "hockey-stick" is what it is - and that's consensus science and not "discredited" at all except amongst a certain bigoted mind-set who you seem to be a leading member of.

Also - please link to evidence of this "debunked 97%" claim - I'm afraid simple assertion doesn't count. Oh and Mr Watts et al doesn't count as evidence.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (26) Oct 23, 2013
Are you a survivalist then, Bookbinder? Since wind/solar are obviously no match for global warming big emitters China/India/USA, I assume you support an immediate reinstitution of the Greenpeace-thwarted Atomic Age, right? The end of civilization is at stake! Yet the bulk of your online activity on Phys.org is about culinary tidbits like rice, wine, and truffles?! But...THE END OF EVERYBODY'S INVESTMENTS is at stake, you say? Did your grandparents tell you it was much colder during the 1930s dust bowl era and now it's super hot out, like NASA's Jim Hansen claims with his computer program?
sstritt
1 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2013
Its all moot anyway. LENR is real and its coming soon.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (29) Oct 23, 2013
Are you working for me for free, runrig? I don't remember paying you to render ridiculous alarmist straight faces. I've already posted links on this site a dozen times, as you are fully aware but PRETEND are unaware of. You're a troll, merely, just being an ass. If you were serious about the climate debate itself that so upsets us daily readers of Phys.org you'd debunk what appears on Tony's site by various guest posters including mainstream climate scientists instead of desperately projecting the simpleton's folly that THERE LIE MONSTERS to try to stop budding skeptics from doing a google search for "Marcott Redating."

You *know* Marcott's blade that the Hockey Stick team celebrates is based on spurious drop off of data at the end after illegitimate and in fact truly bizarre re-dating of the exact same input data from his Ph.D. thesis. Since you know this, shown by your former faux naive comment stream, your post here itself represents a simple willful effort to deceive the public.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (29) Oct 23, 2013
Background: runrig is a recent retiree from the UK MET office, you know, the outfit that quietly revised their alarmist prediction way downwards during a holiday:
https://tallbloke...orecast/

Awrrrrrrrgh, runrig, a link to a SKEPTIHKAL blog!!!

But runrig, another decade of no warming, as now predicted by your own colleagues, would fully falsify the scary positive feedback climate models that all alarm is based upon, right?

Extra heat is hiding in the deep ocean then?

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
runrig
3.4 / 5 (19) Oct 23, 2013
Are you working for me for free, runrig?


No, I merely debunk you as it's so easy to do my friend. Your assertions ( that's all they are) are so ridiculous and "down the rabbit hole" any one who isn't an inmate in your asylum can intuitively recognise the difference between science and demented hand-waving assertion.

Care to clarify your recent hypocritical assertion that the energy stored in the deep ocean only amounted to an equivalent 0.065C if transferred to the atmosphere (courtesy of string theorist Lubis Motl - a similarly demented and ideologically challenged denialist) when in fact he/you omitted the crucial and basic fact that the ocean has 1000x the mass of the atmosphere and that heat increase amounted to 65C. Was that because you are stupid or merely gullible?

And evidence of the "debunked 97%" consensus please ?

Keep em coming Nik - I can gainsay you each and every time (when my eyes don't glaze over and I can see through your mind-numbing verbal diarrhea).
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (27) Oct 23, 2013
runrig, please point out the actual input data fairly plotted by Willis Eschenbach from Marcott's paper that corresponds to an abrupt hockey stick result that created its own news cycle:
http://s17.postim...mage.jpg
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (28) Oct 23, 2013
runrig, did you post your comment on Lubos Motl's site? Blog use is free! I'm sure everybody would appreciate his response. Or did you just drop a turd here when I was no longer in some old thread? I can't wait for that 65°C jump in T to prove you right, at which case the oceans would nearly be boiling like Al Gore says is about to happen, or was that Jim Hansen?
runrig
3.4 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2013
runrig is a recent retiree from the UK MET office, you know, the outfit that quietly revised their alarmist prediction way downwards during a holiday:
https://tallbloke...orecast/


Yes, that would be a skeptical blog and therefore invalid.

The UKMO forecast is as the IPCC's .....

http://www.climat...2013.pdf

http://www.metoff...ming.PDF
http://www.metoff...ions.pdf

"More importantly, the most likely warming is reduced by only 10%, indicating that the warming that we might previously have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years. "

Yes, a major and shocking downgrading isn't it Nik? Worthy of publishing during a holiday, I'd say?

Oh, and feel free to use whatever variations on combinations of ass and hole you feel fit in order to expunge your frustration. If it helps.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2013
runrig, did you post your comment on Lubos Motl's site? Blog use is free! I'm sure everybody would appreciate his response. Or did you just drop a turd here when I was no longer in some old thread? I can't wait for that 65°C jump in T to prove you right, at which case the oceans would nearly be boiling like Al Gore says is about to happen, or was that Jim Hansen?


I don't think Mr Motl is that stupid he didn't realise his Bon Mot my friend. If you had any inkling of thermodynamics then it would be intuitive it was bollocks - but no you merely took it as the truth without question as you hypocritically accuse "warmists" of doing (and no doubt as has happened in the intellectually challenged Denialosphere) . Not that you care, but you made an idiot of yourself in your desperation to prove that the emperor was naked and the enlightened few have seen it.

Try reading this...
ftp://140.90.235....at05.pdf
And get a grip on real science.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (18) Oct 23, 2013
runrig, please point out the actual input data fairly plotted by Willis Eschenbach from Marcott's paper that corresponds to an abrupt hockey stick result that created its own news cycle:
http://s17.postim...mage.jpg


This from the author's mouth....

http://www.realcl...t-et-al/
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (26) Oct 23, 2013
runrig, please point out the actual input data fairly plotted by Willis Eschenbach from Marcott's paper that corresponds to an abrupt hockey stick result that created its own news cycle:
http://s17.postim...mage.jpg

The blog you link to is site registered to the exact same PR firm behind both the vaccine/autism scare and the junk science silicone breast implant lawsuit that bankrupted Dow Corning. Lots of words there, I see! Now respond to my simple presentation of the simple fact that a simple plot of Marcott's hockey stick input data quite simply and utterly falsifies his published graph that appeared all over the alarmist media empire after passing peer review at Science magazine.

PR firms are world experts at spinning out massive disinformation campaigns. There are no PR firms supporting us skeptics. Thus Tony's site is Tony's site, whereas DeSmogBlog.com is owned by a greenie PR firm, thousands of mere words a week all put out to spin alarmism and smear skeptics.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (28) Oct 23, 2013
Marcott's co-author Shaken is seen here telling a NY Times reporter that the input data I just linked to twice, resulted in a "swoosh!" super hockey stick, as was shown in the Science paper and around the world:
http://www.youtub...p;sns=em

If this behavior isn't rank scientific fraud I don't know what is, since it will clearly become a future textbook example of it.

A "kind of super hockey stick!" from input data that any kid or layperson can clearly see, just doesn't exist in the real world that data came from:
http://s17.postim...mage.jpg

runrig, did you post your debunking to Motl's blog yet, to afford a reply?
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (26) Oct 23, 2013
Skeptical argument: basic data.
Alarmist argument: spin doctor word salad*.

One of these indeed represents calculated disinformation.

*NOW with aDdED cENsoRsHiP!!!
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (26) Oct 23, 2013
Both Michael Mann himself and now Anthony Watts have pointed to this very thread:
http://wattsupwit...nomenon/

Who needs his own blog with publicity like this! The other day was a direct Drudge Report link after I posted the billions of dollars prematurely tossed into bankrupt green energy companies, at the expense of basic R&D in hard science.
Neinsense99
2.2 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2013
Background: runrig is a recent retiree from the UK MET office, you know, the outfit that quietly revised their alarmist prediction way downwards during a holiday:
https://tallbloke...orecast/

Awrrrrrrrgh, runrig, a link to a SKEPTIHKAL blog!!!

But runrig, another decade of no warming, as now predicted by your own colleagues, would fully falsify the scary positive feedback climate models that all alarm is based upon, right?

Extra heat is hiding in the deep ocean then?

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

Did you say you got that in 1995? Somebody said it was '98 and they knew you, but I thought they were wrong.
SamB
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2013
What is climate protection?.. Do people really think we can somehow protect the climate and if so why and from what??? If they think we can somehow protect the climate from change then I believe they are living in la-la land. The climate has been changing for millions of years and I am sure it will continue to do so for another few million years. Are there really idiots out there that think we are going to change the climate?
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (24) Oct 24, 2013
Neinsense99, I left Columbia in '95 with an honors earning Ph.D. in synthesis of carbon lattices with a future Am. Chem. Soc. president (Breslow) and future Nobelist (Chalfie) on my defense committee. I left Harvard in '98 after a postdoc with microfabrication genius George Whitesides. As an undergrad at the UofMN I spent separate years in an organometallic synthesis lab and then a bacteriophage structure/function group oddly supported within the dental school.

A hard science empirical background explains my impatience and natural bemusement towards theory guys and natural instinct to quite actively pursue things theory haughtily insists isn't a good idea.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2013
The blog you link


The "Blog" I linked is irrelevant to any paranoia you may have developed towards it in the matter or rebutting the bollocks that has emerged over the Marcott proxies.
It is a direct reply from the author untainted by any supposed conspiracy that "Blog" may be committing.
His findings merely repeats all that others have found including your denialist champions of old.
verkle
1 / 5 (18) Oct 24, 2013
The real question here is not whether we would shell out some money for a cause.
It is the basic question of, "Can man put forth enough effort to save himself?"

For those who believe the Bible, the answer is a resounding "No!" No matter how hard we try, we are never going to save ourselves from any great calamity in the future, whether it's caused by warming, or cooling, by asteroids, by earthquakes, or by anything else. Because we believe that God controls those things.

This debate is really about where we put our trust.

orti
2.2 / 5 (26) Oct 24, 2013
I've discovered why you are a denier.
Yes. It's because you are selfish.
Scientific research has demonstrated this.
And you must be manipulated by your betters into doing the right thing.

Egleton
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 24, 2013
Do give your bosses the Koch brothers my regards and tell them I offer my spincter for their inspection.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (27) Oct 24, 2013
The one seriously funded by the Koch brothers in this thread is runrig's "former skeptic" Richard Muller of the Berkeley Earth Project, according to Wikipedia:

"The Koch Foundation is a major funder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort to address the criticism of records of the earth's surface temperatures."

But Mike "Nature Trick" Mann himself is on Twitter pointing to this thread and skeptical comments here as being Koch money based, as the Kochs donate $ to his *own* university?!

It's just bizarre. Wait, no, it's just PR firm tutored smoke screen. What's bizarre are the lack of BS detectors out there, actually, the suckers born every minute.

The Duran Duran song "New Religion" explains current climate activism exactly so:

"I'm talking for free, I can't stop myself,
It's a new religion
I've something to see, I can't help myself,
It's a new religion

Okay, my reasoning might be clouded by the sun
But someone sees the departmental lie"
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (24) Oct 24, 2013
A screenshot of Mike Mann's celebration of Marcott's fraudulent hockey stick is here:
http://s15.postim...2013.jpg

Yet the actual input data for that study itself falsifies instead of supports the very claim that history is a hockey stick. The proxies themselves (physical substitutes for the lack of real thermometers going back 10K years) in fact *disprove* the claim that recent warming represents a change in trend. Peer reviewed in Science for anyone to see as plotted directly from the paper's own Supplementary Information.
http://s17.postim...mage.jpg

That's it. The skeptical argument in full, namely exposure of the central alarmist enabler doing a Snoopy dance for brazen scientific fraud.
triplehelix
1.7 / 5 (24) Oct 24, 2013
Money stops climate change.

That's right. Paper and ink magically destroy CO2 molecules.

If we're told we need to switch our lightbulbs off and have no street lighting, then why are those telling us to do this living in giant mansions with patio heaters?

The climate is fine, and has always changed without humans, and will continue to change with humans.

Looking forward to the ice age in 2100 when all the text books say it will be a tropical paradise.
triplehelix
1.7 / 5 (24) Oct 24, 2013
Neinsense99, I left Columbia in '95 with an honors earning Ph.D. in synthesis of carbon lattices with a future Am. Chem. Soc. president (Breslow) and future Nobelist (Chalfie) on my defense committee. I left Harvard in '98 after a postdoc with microfabrication genius George Whitesides. As an undergrad at the UofMN I spent separate years in an organometallic synthesis lab and then a bacteriophage structure/function group oddly supported within the dental school.

A hard science empirical background explains my impatience and natural bemusement towards theory guys and natural instinct to quite actively pursue things theory haughtily insists isn't a good idea.


The issue here is you have done real science, so it makes climate changes wishy washy 1 data point along a stochastic graph hilarious when they think they can predict anything, which they have failed to do everytime they make a decade long forecast, let alone a century one.
CreepyD
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 24, 2013
Everything in life gradually changes - we deal with it.
Climate change will be no different, it's a much slower process than almost every other thing we adapt perfectly well to.
Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (21) Oct 24, 2013
Neinsense99, I left Columbia in '95 with an honors earning Ph.D. in synthesis of carbon lattices with a future Am. Chem. Soc. president (Breslow) and future Nobelist (Chalfie) on my defense committee. I left Harvard in '98 after a postdoc with microfabrication genius George Whitesides. As an undergrad at the UofMN I spent separate years in an organometallic synthesis lab and then a bacteriophage structure/function group oddly supported within the dental school.

A hard science empirical background explains my impatience and natural bemusement towards theory guys and natural instinct to quite actively pursue things theory haughtily insists isn't a good idea.


The issue here is you have done real science, so it makes climate changes wishy washy 1 data point along a stochastic graph hilarious when they think they can predict anything, which they have failed to do everytime they make a decade long forecast, let alone a century one.

Merci.
no fate
3.9 / 5 (15) Oct 24, 2013
Stay in New York Nik. In 100 years some snorkler will swim into your residence and find artifacts from the life of the most educated dunce doomed climate change denialists had to offer. For someone of your academic credentials, your grip on reality is mind boggling... or did those institutions actually foster complete ignorance of observational evidence?

When biology that has been covered by ice for over 100,000 years starts revealing itself in multiple locations in the nothern hemisphere, and arctic temps continue to increase despite a global "stall" in warming, and the average yearly temp. is "flattening" at what was considered a rediculously high outlier, the prospects are as grim as the article paints. Do you forget that where we are now was unheard of until 1998 unless compared with other ultra warm periods in the past?

It makes me sick that if we continue on this path future generations will judge you and I to be equal contributors to the state of their earth.

runrig
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2013
Looking forward to the ice age in 2100 when all the text books say it will be a tropical paradise.


Could you please explain to the uninitiated, just exactly how that is going to occur, and just what these "text books" are?
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 24, 2013
Oh dear "no fate," the Manhattan tide gauge station in Battery Park realllllllllllllllly duzzzzz looooooook BAHD!!!
http://www.psmsl....s/12.php

In all seriousness, "no fate," this is the exact same case for nearly every long running tide gauge on planet Earth. I can't imagine anything more empirical than this direct on-the-ground test of alarmist claims. The simple fact is that tide gauges that cover both hemispheres for a century and a half, unlike thermometers, scream back at you:

THE TREND REMAINS THE SAME!

But we we continuously hear highly duplicitous claims that the systematic mismatch between tide gauges (relative to land) and satellite altimeters of about 1 mm a year actually represents a sudden jump in real world trend! These types if claims are even made by mainstream climatologists to policy makers.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (23) Oct 24, 2013
Phys.org deleted my second link with its editor:
http://s15.postim...1_58.jpg

It usually grabs the nearest whole paragraph too. Oh boo, that's missing too, sarcasm unrecoverable.

It said that if you take the tide gauge data and plot a trend line to apply the null hypothesis test that no big 'G' global warming signal asserts itself, the null hypothesis holds tight since tide gauge station data worldwide generally show a *much* better fit to a straight line than to any version of a Nike swoosh.
VENDItardE
1.5 / 5 (23) Oct 24, 2013
just have to loved it when Scott gets so pissed that he can't stop himself from signing in as all his trolls.....nein.....how......run....LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSERRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSS
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (21) Oct 25, 2013
just have to loved it when Scott gets so pissed that he can't stop himself from signing in as all his trolls.....nein.....how......run....LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSERRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSS

Duplicate post from another thread. Also 100% wrong, as usual.
goracle
2.3 / 5 (18) Oct 25, 2013
just have to loved it when Scott gets so pissed that he can't stop himself from signing in as all his trolls.....nein.....how......run....LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSERRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSS

Meanwhile, 'Dalriada' just happens to log in to down vote responses to your posts, while never posting...
djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2013
Niky constantly pastes links to tide gauges. Now if you look at the gauge Niky linked today - http://www.psmsl....high.png You will see an increase in level of about 300 mm, over the past 100 years. Now Niky's gauge only goes back to 1850. If you look at the period 1850 - 1900 - you will see a rise of less than 100mm. Surely this does indicate a statistically significant increase in the rate at which the levels are rising.

The big question Niky will never answer is this. We know a lot about the drivers of global temperatures. The tide gauge referenced clearly supports the notion that the ocean levels are rising. This surely has to come from melting ice sheets, and glaciers. What is the driver of the warming that is causing the ice sheets and glaciers to melt?
ForFreeMinds
1.6 / 5 (22) Oct 27, 2013
People are bad at getting a grip on collective risks.


If this is true, how would the author know?

Considering the entire article is based on this assumption, the article is nothing more than the author arguing for government control of us in the name of "Stop Climate Change" because "if people are to invest in climate protection, they must have short-term incentives to do so."

Given "people are bad at getting a grip on collective risks" I'll point out that the author is bad at getting a grip on the risks of socialist schemes to control us and our use of energy, when it's done for power, irrespective if it changes the climate. He very likely overestimates the risks of AGW as well.
DavidW
1 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2013
The value of any cause is the Truth of that cause because the Truth encourages and promotes that which is factually Most Important in Life: Life.

People that don't value the Truth cannot value any cause. In fact, they don't even value their own selves as Life is also a Truth.
Eikka
1 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2013
You will see an increase in level of about 300 mm, over the past 100 years. Now Niky's gauge only goes back to 1850. If you look at the period 1850 - 1900 - you will see a rise of less than 100mm. Surely this does indicate a statistically significant increase in the rate at which the levels are rising.


How do you judge "less than 100 mm" from that graph?

For the overall shape of it, it seems very linear.
djr
4.9 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2013
Eikka: "For the overall shape of it, it seems very linear.

I can read a ruler - that is how. You on the other hand have a political perspective to promote - so you conveniently cannot read a ruler. If you compare the first 50 years of the chart - to the last 50 years - there is a clear difference.

Care to take a shot at answering the question - 'what is the driver of the warming that has caused this sea level rise'?????
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (30) Oct 28, 2013
we are well-informed individuals who act for the common good and, more particularly, for the good of future generations.


If the political left truely believed that, they would never advocate the legality of abortion.

........................................

The entire 'progressive liberal' mentality relies on collectivism and "behavior for the common good". It is a complete farce and only exists in the liberal mind, not in reality. People are individuals and are driven by egoistic motives only. This is why the political far left must rely on coercion and force, .... and that fact is an implicite failure of their ideology.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2013
People are individuals and are driven by egoistic motives only. This is why the political far left must rely on coercion and force, .... and that fact is an implicite failure of their ideology.


Yep about sums up human nature … and it's what is likely to ultimately doom our civilisation. There is no "coercion" except in the minds of those with "egoistic motives". Just common sense actions by people who are a little less "egoistic" than perhaps the norm. The perceived "coercion" then comes about from those frustrated by those "egoists" in their mind-numbing ignorance and short-sightedness. Do you not see? (rhetorical) Nothing takes place in isolation. The one begets the other. What is important are the (consensus) facts and the obviousness that an answer to the problem necessarily requires collective action. That's NOT socialism. It's the achievement of humans to see the wood from the trees and act other than primitive tribes who do not communicate with each other.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 29, 2013
... the problem necessarily requires collective action. That's NOT socialism.


Voluntary, cooperative action is not socialism.

Asset redistribution through the coercion of AGW scaremongering is socialism.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (29) Oct 29, 2013
Just common sense actions by people who are a little less "egoistic" than perhaps the norm. The perceived "coercion" then comes about from those frustrated by those "egoists" in their mind-numbing ignorance and short-sightedness.


You personally have zero clue about what actions are advocated by the UN. If you were even mildly politically literate you would know that far leftists forces aim to use AGW alarmism to impose massive redistribution of wealth and massive social engineering of behavior, and it is those people who have been the ones who put up road blocks to meaningful environmental progress by demanding control over economies and anti-capitalism.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (29) Oct 29, 2013
What is important are the (consensus) facts and the obviousness that an answer to the problem necessarily requires collective action....


Of course there is a consensus of climate change by climatologists for otherwise their industry would be redundant. To be a climatologists today amongest massive industry funding and alarmism hype, is de facto to accept AGW. Consensus of itself has never been a basis for scientific validation, in fact over and over it has hindered progress. Only prediction can be the arbiter. Their numbers are so tiny, tenths of a degree per decade, that if Rosanne Bar farts in California, it's effects the numbers Istanbul.

There is no consensus amongst the 'collective genius of mankind' wrt a cataclysm of climate change due to man, period.

There are enough AGW believers tha DO NOT voluntarily reduce their lifestyles that it is no longer tenable to blame the "deniers".
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (27) Oct 29, 2013
....

Individuals have to be personally and egoistically effected by 'something' to change their behavior. Either they have to be controlled directly by force or indirectly through coercion, or there has to be a substantive economic Reality that causes them to freely choose an alternative,... like oil prices rising thus opening alternative markets.

The latter is a natural response and so will be economicaly robust, while the former is ad hoc tinkering, counter to economic reality and nature of man, and so is a threat to economic stability.

The study is admitting the principals of egoism as a basis of personal behavior, which was Ayn Rand's cold hard analysis of the best means of human progress.

The global community can't even prevent genecide and starvation in modern times, never mind controlling the earths thermostat.

The far left AGW alarmists are the last people who care about humanity given the history of their ideology and that they advocate aborting future generations.
dogbert
1 / 5 (18) Oct 29, 2013
The far left AGW alarmists are the last people who care about humanity given the history of their ideology and that they advocate aborting future generations.


Their policies, if accepted, would result in the destruction of billions of the current generation. A return to a pre-insustrial life style would kill many. This is actually what the far left AGW alarmists seek.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2013
Asset redistribution through the coercion of AGW scaremongering is socialism.


QED

Egoistic behaviour rooted in selfishness.. Why not come straight out with it? ....
Not with my tax dollars!

If that's what it takes - quite right too.

Western countries have buggered it up and will have to pay (a little now to save more in the future). It's called responsibility to others. This of course in addition to the overwhelming rational argument.

And NO I'll not be getting into Politics tennis.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2013
ndividuals have to be personally and egoistically effected by 'something' to change their behavior. Either they have to be controlled directly by force or indirectly through coercion, or there has to be a substantive economic Reality that causes them to freely choose an alternative,... like oil prices rising thus opening alternative markets.


Correct - like some renewables are becoming competitive .... but only because of subsidy - that NEEDED to get economies of scale. Vis Solar PV arrays, like that around 10 feet above my head.

The BIG petro peeps will only jump in when there are instant profits - and like a self-fulfilling prophecy it will never happen. Hence the need to KICK START.

Some help with battery tech and that energy currently feeding into the grid could be stored for my use this evening.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (28) Oct 29, 2013
"In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about," - Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT

There are reasons to believe that we have plenty of time to evolve off of dirty carbon based energy. At present there is no competitive replacement for oil for the volume used, which is why oil use continues to rise despite the AGW alarmism. The only way to determine which energy source will replace it is to let the markets decide, naturally. This is just a reality.

The UN now wants more global funding to defeat astroids. This from the same group of morons who were unwilling to determine whether Syria's al-Assad used chemical weapons or not.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.