Patterico's Pontifications

3/3/2008

Rick Moran on Global Warming

Filed under: Environment,General — Patterico @ 12:12 am



I’d say Rick’s piece sums up my feelings about as well as anything I’ve read in a while.

I’m no scientist. Neither is Nobel Prize winning global warming alarmist and hypocrite Al Gore. Nor are the legions of global warming deniers who are pointing to a stretch of cold weather as “proof” that global warming is a myth.

We are, most of us, not qualified in any way, shape, or form to make any kind of technical or scientific judgment on most of the evidence relating to climate change unless we happen to hold an advanced technical degree and are able to examine that evidence in its totality and not pick and choose headlines that bolster one’s political position on the issue.

The idiocy inherent in the prospect of myself or 95% of internet commenters – right and left – trying to hold a scientific debate on a subject where almost all of us are not scientists and where most of the evidence is couched in the arcane and mysterious language of scientific disciplines for which the overwhelming majority of us barely realize the parameters of study is self evident.

Not that this matters because at bottom, we who are unable to examine the evidence on the same plane as climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, environmental scientists, and a hodgepodge of chemists, archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scientists end up simply believing one side or the other. Like religious fanatics, the two sides argue dogma while rejecting the other’s “beliefs” as apostasy.

Considering the stakes, this is madness.

Indeed.

Read it all, and thanks to voiceofreason2.

113 Responses to “Rick Moran on Global Warming”

  1. If we accept the premise Moran lays out: the case simply has not been made, our course is clear.

    If you want me to change something, and said change necessarily results in significant pain to myself, you must first make the case that I am doing something wrong.

    Ed (8166cd)

  2. “we who are unable to examine the evidence on the same plane as climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, environmental scientists, and a hodgepodge of chemists, archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scientists end up simply believing one side or the other.”

    Why is this any different to everything else in life.

    davod (5bdbd3)

  3. It’s true that this stretch of cold weather does nothing to prove or disprove “global warming” or “climate change” or anything. But it’s demonstrably not true that the scientific arguments are beyond our understanding, and accessable only to the mystic high priests of academia and the chosen few.

    They’re not.

    I’m not saying it’s easy, but the science itself does not go much beyond the level that your high school chemistry teacher taught you. Only the details differ. It’s still observe, hypothesize, predict, repeat.

    There’s a reason the the discussion can seem arcane, but the reason isn’t the science. It’s the politics.

    Joe Buckley (9fbd18)

  4. Everybody remembers Eisenhower’s warning about the, “military-industrial complex,” shoot, it has become the siren call of some.

    Few if any recall — and it is never repeated — the second of the two specific warning he made in that very same speech:

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” (emphasis added)

    The scientific-technological elite, Eisenhower truly was prescient. Read the speech, it could have been written today.
    DKK

    LifeTrek (c76ad1)

  5. I’m not a scientist either however my commonsense tells me it is madness to believe human beings(yes, even scientists) have enough knowledge and skill to understand, much less control, an extraordinarily complex system called nature.

    Geez for the last six days in row the weather report has been completely the opposite of the forecast reported yet it’s all based on ‘scientific analysis’.

    It’s like stuck on Darwin forever yet never knowing what caused the first cell of existence.

    I agree with the comment “the reason isn’t the science. It’s the politics.”

    syn (1017f1)

  6. I don’t need to be a scientist. I only need to be a historian and use my commonsense.

    gahrie (56a0a8)

  7. That sounds an awful lot like:

    “I have experience because I know someone who does (or did) that”

    Very compelling.

    – From a person trained extensively in the scientific method.

    Dr. K (5139b5)

  8. What exactly is the scientific method?

    davod (5bdbd3)

  9. Feynmann called this “cargo cult science.”

    From West Texas 2 (f28dac)

  10. If everyone were to only stick to subjects where they hold a PhD, there would be no blogosphere. There would be no voters or opinions either given that the overwhelming majority of voters don’t hold concurrent degrees in economics, political science, environmental studies, international relations, mathematics, etc.

    The fact is that there is no definitive proof of anthropogenic global warming, and the vast majority of ‘political solutions’, which are being offered by the left, would be catastrophic to our economy while exempting some of the worst (and completely unapologetic) polluters of the world. There is no call for scientists to only debate the issue from the other side- nor do I trust the scientific community to remain objective when I constantly hear that this is a ‘moral issue’.

    It makes no sense to me that I should be sitting this one out because I didn’t choose to get a PhD in climate study when the people who want to enact massive change based on their political beliefs have no intention of doing the same. As Ed said, they’re the ones trying to use their beliefs, not objective scientific fact, to create great upheaval. My involvement as someone who hasn’t been convinced about anthropogenic global warming has no negative impact insofar as unwarranted policy creation is concerned.

    NeoconNews.com (2a37f8)

  11. We are, most of us, not qualified in any way, shape, or form to make any kind of technical or scientific judgment on most of the evidence relating to climate change unless we happen to hold an advanced technical degree and are able to examine that evidence in its totality and not pick and choose headlines that bolster one’s political position on the issue.

    I’m sorry, but that position is a non-starter. Our experience equips us to be appropriately skeptical of newly-discovered (or invented) crises that seem to pop up out of nowhere in the absence of any particular new breakthroughs in legitimate science. The results are misguided policy decisions such as the worldwide banning of DDT, with tragic consequences. It is irresponsible to sit on the sidelines and defer to s-called experts.

    We don’t need Ph.D.’s to be entitled to ask hard questions of those who propose to demand significant sacrifice and economic harm. And when the claims of the climate doomsayers can be so effectively rebutted by other knowledgeable people (see, e.g. The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’), in terms that are entirely comprehensible by ordinary educated people, then we have a duty to remain skeptical.

    VG

    Voiceguy in L.A. (51a3f5)

  12. Why should we believe “climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists…” are any different from reporters and judges, whose work is supposed to be free of bias, but in fact is anything but?

    steve sturm (40e5a6)

  13. It’s sad that laymen like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts need to core trees and survey weather stations in order to make a dent in the supposed ironclad consensus. Even the hockey stick itself refuses to die a dignified scientific death. Sure it has gotten warmer, but is it really at an alarming rate? Unprecedented? Dr. Craig Loehle showed that removing bristlecone pines from proxy reconstructions gives a pronounced MWP with some pretty sharp non-AGW temp spikes. The skeptical blowback is in direct proportion to the alarmist hysteria. Cooler temps prove nothing except that there is likely time to get the science right.

    rhodeymark (923596)

  14. The politics of fear makes me suspect global warming. Give me a calm and measured explanation, answer questions without calling me names, and I would listen. Otherwise I feel like I am being sold a bridge in Brooklyn.

    Al Gore has destroyed the issue with his demagoguery.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  15. It’s really not so hard. Was the warming in the last quarter of last century from carbon dioxide or the sun? Well, the globe has cooled, lately, while CO2 continues its steady trek upward. The sun? Well, it is unusually, not quite extraordinarily, quiescent, lately.

    See, that’s not so hard, is it? Now about getting the mad crowd to stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and getting them to lean on the tiller instead, well, NASA, we have a problem.
    ==========================

    kim (248517)

  16. We are, most of us, not qualified in any way, shape, or form to make any kind of technical or scientific judgment on most of the evidence relating to climate change unless we happen to hold an advanced technical degree and are able to examine that evidence in its totality and not pick and choose headlines that bolster one’s political position on the issue.

    I’m sorry, but that position is a non-starter. Our experience equips us to be appropriately skeptical of newly-discovered (or invented) crises that seem to pop up out of nowhere in the absence of any particular new breakthroughs in legitimate science. The results are misguided policy decisions such as the worldwide banning of DDT, with tragic consequences. It is irresponsible to sit on the sidelines and defer to s-called experts.

    We don’t need Ph.D.’s to be entitled to ask hard questions of those who propose to demand significant sacrifice and economic harm. And when the claims of the climate doomsayers can be so effectively rebutted by other knowledgeable people (see, e.g. The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’), in terms that are entirely comprehensible by ordinary educated people, then we have a duty to remain skeptical.

    VG

    So, you are saying that because I do not hold a JD, I am perfectly competent to comment on legal decisions? Cool! When can I start my practice?

    If everyone were to only stick to subjects where they hold a PhD, there would be no blogosphere. There would be no voters or opinions either given that the overwhelming majority of voters don’t hold concurrent degrees in economics, political science, environmental studies, international relations, mathematics, etc.

    Opinions are like noses – everyone has one and they all smell. Unfortunately, uninformed opinions forwarde by someone who has no training in the area are close to worthless. It manifests itself as “Since I have a voice and I really, really care, then if I feel it must be true, it is.”

    Pure rubbish.

    Dr. K (5139b5)

  17. No – opinions are like fundaments, Dr. K. Thanks for the demonstration. You ARE competent to COMMENT on legal decisions, are you not? Or are you stating that you have never expressed an opinion on a legal decision?

    rhodeymark (923596)

  18. The man said that it would be good for me. Who am I to judge? He was an M.D. He used a lot of pharmacological jargon. And, hey, a lot of the big university hospitals now have departments in this kind of medicine. I can’t handle this science stuff, so I just leave it to the experts.

    I am concerned, though, about the price of my snake oil. Do you suppose Wal-Mart would include it in their $4 prescriptions?

    Don (48a822)

  19. Al Gore certianly is no scientis he is a con artist and a liar and all this GLOABL WRMING is a big fat lie being used by unscruplous persons including AL GORE and the green nuts

    krazy kagu (c6e87a)

  20. Am I competent to comment on legal decisions? Hell no. Does that mean I do not have opinions? Hell yes.

    I just do not voice them in an open forum where I can demonstrate my ignorance.

    But I guess you miss the larger point. If one is not competent to comment, but does anyway, and is shown that his “opinion” is pure rubbish but refuses to acknowledge it because he “really, really care(s)” then all you get is a shouting match.

    Never teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and annoy the pig.

    People think that they know the law but are not trained in it are shown to be fools. People who think they know science but are not trained in it vigorously debate the topic in question without being burdened by logic or facts.

    Dr. K (5139b5)

  21. One would hope that a layman can understand “Freedom of Speech” sufficiently well without referring to a lawyer.

    Al (b624ac)

  22. You would think so, but they do not. Just look at all the speech codes on college campuses.

    Dr. K (5139b5)

  23. I don’t think you can blame critics of “global warming/climate change” for ridiculing the proponents with anecdotal evidence.

    It’s one thing for avant guarde theories to be thrashed out in the scientific community. It’s quite another to expect ordinary folks to support drastic economic and lifestyle sacrifices on the opinion of self-interested experts. A good example is “cold fusion” — it got everyone excited for a time before it was debunked but nobody used it as a basis for political and economic policy.

    In spite of all the hype, the global warming proponents have failed to make their case; they have failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to convince the person of average education that (1) it’s real (caused by humans and not a normal weather cycle), and (2) that any human sacrifice will alter the future weather patterns.

    As we saw with the Y2K Scare there is a limit to what people will accept based on expert opinion. The sacrifice in money and other resources spent on Y2K preparation bumped up against that limit. But Y2K was a finite threat which would reveal itself or disappear at the stroke of midnight. Businesses assessed the risk and invested accordingly. Much of the investment in risk assessment and disaster planning made common sense and paid dividends later following 9-11.

    The more drastic Kyoto-type sacrifices demand a higher standard of proof from its proponents — that burden of proof has not been met. Average Americans may agree generally with common sense enviro policies, but they will not accept proposals to damage the U.S economy on the say-so of “iffy science”. Ridiculing Al Gore’s new religion is just a way of pointing it out to the true believers.

    capitano (03e5ec)

  24. To take the evidence model a step further, think of it as a jury deliberation weighing evidence in a complex case only more public.

    One juror trying to persuade another — neither juror an expert but both of average intelligence. They bring to the court room their accumulated life experience. It is up to the plaintiff made his case by convincing the jury and there is nothing improper with the jurors rehashing the testimony of the opposing experts to reach a verdict.

    capitano (03e5ec)

  25. I would imagine that Patterico disagrees, as he posts on legal subjects, and opens comments for various levels of informed opinion. As capitano demonstrates, are not jury verdicts legal decisions? Unfortunately, not all scientists are dispassionately following the evidence – some are busily making their case in the court of public opinion. You may well be trained in the scientific method, pray tell us what chapter discloses when “the science is settled”?

    rhodeymark (923596)

  26. A jury deliberation is not a legal opinion. It is an assessment of the facts. Juries are instructed in the law for a specific case; jurors are not assumed to be experts in the law.

    Science is never truly settled. Einstein’s theory of relativity expanded on Newton’s “settled” explanation of the universe. Grand unification theory will one day reconcile Einstein and Newton. Fifty years ago, plate tectonics was denounced as “junk science”. 100 years ago, the concept of an “Ice Age” was laughed at. 500 years ago, there was debate as to whether the earth was flat, when 2000 years ago, it was accepted that it was not.

    Unfortunately, celebrities are generally members of the “make stuff up” club. What I object to is people who have no training stating their faith in something that has not be rigorously examined and pronouncing it as gospel – and having the woefully uneducated of the US nodding in agreement and declaring it “settled”.

    Dr. K (5139b5)

  27. Patrick,
    I’m not a scientist.My doctorate(medicine) and Grad work(micro)are of use in my profession,and I certainly have enough usage of the terminology to impresss liberal arts majors,etc.But my feelings about intensely technical subjects are that unless one has enough expertise to critically read a paper and,at least ,pick up gross errors.(Paulings famous fu on the structure of DNA comes to my mind) you’re just an echo chamber.
    I recall a Thanksgiving dinner some yeaqrs ago when my aunt(by marriage) was saying she despised GWB because of Global Warming.(My aunt has also been known to say,”I’m not of trhe people ,but I’m for the people.”It’s easy to say things like this when your husband straightens teeth for about 1m/YR)
    i ASKED aLICE TO CONVERT 20 C to F.She couldn’t.Although,to be fair,I doubt I could have done so before, say ,3 rd grade.When I asked her if she also wanted to hold strong comments on Etruscan architecture,I was asked to leave the Thanksgiving meal

    corwin (dfaf29)

  28. While I agree in principle that we, as individuals, should not assert our authority on areas where we have little or none, I do not think that means that we shouldn’t have opinions on areas where we as individuals have no “authority.”

    As citizens in a democracy, we are continually dealing with policy decisions (on a variety of topics) based upon whatever information we acquire from sources that we trust. These policy decisions are also informed by our own unique biases. Using Global Climate Change as an example. There are those who see a Malthusian doom foreshadowed in every human action, for them any Global Climate Change will naturally be a product of human action. There are also those who find the link between “green” movements and communism too close to be trusted, who will reject any environmentalism based on this prejudice.

    I think both the above positions are ridiculous, but both are natural as well, since we are dealing with views of a “just world.” As such, these individuals will look for experts who confirm their own prejudices. We do it all the time.

    Even with this being the case, that many/most people selectively acquire data to confirm their own prejudices, in a democracy it is important to note that it is these “less knowledgeable” people who inform their own prejudices who are the final “deciders.” The entire premise of democratic regimes is that those best fit to rule are the governed themselves. Not through any virtue of “collective knowledge,” rather through the practical understanding that they will have no one to blame but themselves.

    History has also shown us the many times that regimes based upon “knowledgeable elites” don’t tend to work very well, or even at all. We are eons away from Harry Seldon inventing PsychoHistory. I may sound anti-intellectual, but even the modern scientific process is “anti-intellectual” in its own way. It never accepts any theory as TRUTH, rather theories represent the models upon which we base actions. Theories are the way things are “as we currently understand it,” and not the “mere theories” as those who wish to lessen the value of scientific theories call things like Darwinism when utilizing obfuscatory rhetorical tools to make the weaker argument the stronger.

    Modern politics where people want the State to solve their problems means that some people will point to experts with “reasons and solutions” where they may or may not exist. If we believe that the State is responsible for taking care of us and the environment, as many do Tragedy of the Commons be damned, then we need to form policies based on what may be a shifting understanding of a phenomenon.

    Christian Johnson (babcd1)

  29. #26 — A jury deliberation is not a legal opinion. It is an assessment of the facts. Juries are instructed in the law for a specific case; jurors are not assumed to be experts in the law.

    My point was that jurors without scientific expertise are often required to decide whom to believe among competing expert opinion witnesses — often in very complex, technical cases requiring scientific testimony.

    They are not expected to be scientists; it’s up to the party with the burden of proof to make his case based on the applicable standard of proof, e.g. clear and convincing evidence. Failure to do so means that party loses.

    There’s nothing wrong with jurors discussing which testimony they found more convincing and trying to persuade the other jurors to come to a consensus.

    In my opinion, Al Gore and his crew have failed to meet the burden of proof on global warming. Trying to bully us non-Kool Aid drinkers does make their argument more persuasive, it just opens them to more ridicule.

    capitano (03e5ec)

  30. capitano:

    I also do not believe the burden of proof with respect to global warming has been met. Just because I do not believe that the opinions of non-scientists should be held to high regard on this topic, does not make me part of the echo chamber. That is my opinion for both sides of this discussion.

    Unfortunately, many practicioners of “science” have turned this into a political football. I have even considered resigning my memberships in 2 national organizations over this issue.

    Anyone who says the science is settled one way or the other is blowing smoke.

    Dr. K (5139b5)

  31. One of the first principles of logic is that “He who aserts must prove.” If the disciples of the Church of Global Warming wish to convince this business major, they will need to produce hard evidence based on objective science. Objective science requires that researchers ask a question, gather hard data, and draw at least tentative conclusions based on evidence. Objective science is willing to alter or discard existing belief systems as warranted by evidence. Subjective science(junk science) involves asking questions, formulating answers, and then gathering the evidence that supports those beliefs. Subjective science is willing to alter or discard evidence that contradicts prior conclusions.

    .

    Bar Sinister (eb65fa)

  32. When a squirrel sees AL GORE they se a real big green nut

    krazy kagu (aef0eb)

  33. Dr. K:

    As you stated earlier, the science may never be settled, but I don’t think that’s what the non-scientists are arguing. I think they are arguing over which side has been more persuasive to them — the jury on the political question.

    Whether or not to devote a significant percentage of the GDP to combat an questionable global warming threat is a political decision not a scientific decision. The “deciders” ultimately are the voters, or jury if you will.

    So, when global warming advocates throw out predictions of doom that polar ice is melting and temperatures are rising, the voters have a right to say they are not persuaded, especially when they read the opposite is actually happening. The global warming advocates are free to explain why the voters should not believe what they’re seeing with their own eyes. Condescending bullying probably won’t work.

    capitano (03e5ec)

  34. I agree with earlier commenters such as Corwin, Christian Johnson, and Capitano that informed citizens can sensibly opine on whether the science is persuasive. If that were not true, I defy anyone to ever disagree with their doctor about a medical decision.

    The fact is, however, that we’ve reached a point where most Americans have come to believe that medical, legal, and scientific expert opinions are unassailable. They aren’t. A reasonable person who understands how to use the scientific method and logic can work wonders. See, for example, Lorenzo’s Oil.

    DRJ (d8934e)

  35. When it comes to matters of science, “informed citizens” are a rare commodity.

    Hence, you get preachy, bullying condensention from those who “know better”,

    Dr. K (5139b5)

  36. Hence, you get preachy, bullying condensention from those who “know better”,

    And arrogant, asinine condescension from people who don’t believe any opinion can have value unless blessed by academia. I’d like to see some data (that you gathered yourself) from you demonstrating that informed citizens are rare… and you’d better have degrees in statistics, demographics, multiple sciences, psychology, and underwater basket-weaving or we’re going to dismiss that data as worthless.

    Stashiu3 (c8e98a)

  37. Almost twenty years ago, when there was still a lot of debate over whether global warming exists (not the cause or what to do about it), one of America’s leading mathematicians told me that he believed in it, because the insurance companies were quietly altering their weather models to take it into account. That was a good enough argument for me.

    I haven’t spent much time evaluating the evidence for blaming humans, but I have started to notice the irony that shills of the petrochemical companies are accusing various politicians, NGOs, etc. of having an ulterior motive (meddling in our lives). Right. And Exxon is in it solely for the glory of God. Not. And I’ve also noticed that some of the denialist arguments resemble the Creationist nitpicks against evolution. I’m all for a dispassionate examination of the evidence. Maybe for summer vacation reading!

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  38. Technical knowledge is a good thing… when mixed in the right proportion with humility.

    I know that todays weather doesn’t say much about global trends. Of course in the context of 100 billion years of planet earth, all the Nobel prize winners combined don’t know shit either.

    History is full of “knowledge” that was considered unquestionable and unassailable in its time and then 30-300 years later is considered hopelessly backwards and laughable.

    I remember when science told us that technology would turn our work week into 12 hours. Of course that is true if you have tenure, but for the rest of us, we just have to do more…. hmmmmm
    I sense a trend here

    SteveG (71dc6f)

  39. #36

    I’d like to see some data (that you gathered yourself) from you demonstrating that informed citizens are rare

    American Idol
    Survivor – Wherever
    Any movie with Ashton Kutcher

    Rick Moran (d671ab)

  40. #39

    Let’s see:

    American Idol — never watched it.
    Survivor — never watched it.
    Any movie with Ashton Kutcher — watched a few, the only one I liked was “The Guardian”
    Rightwing Nuthouse — Stopped reading it a long time ago. (comment #33)

    Maybe having a degree in climatology would qualify me to have an expert opinion, maybe it wouldn’t… seems that even some of them disagree. I can have an informed opinion without one, especially when the issue is being used as a political football to force changes on society that many of us object to. We don’t believe “the science is settled” just because some self-proclaimed experts claim it is. Our objections can’t be dismissed just because we’re not experts, as much as the alarmists wish they could. I was responding to Dr. K’s arrogant assertion that informed citizens were a rare commodity and mocking him with his own arguments, but if the shoe fits…

    Stashiu3 (c8e98a)

  41. Stashiu:

    Dude, get a grip. What I am saying is that when jokers like Al Gore manage to get teachers to brainwash kids into believing “The Day After Tomorrrow” is good science and badger their parents into doing “what’s right”, we have a largely uninformed mass dictating public policy.

    As I said, I don’t buy into the whole anthropogenic global climate changiness nonsense.

    However, having a PhD in Chemical Engineering (my MS was on acid rain years ago), and having been an internal consultant in applied mathematical modeling and statistics to 3 Fortune 500 companies over a 20+ year career, allows me to objectively interpret the data and methods employed to come to the conclusion that what is being fed to the public at large (in the US and abroad) is junk science of the highest order.

    Not once here have I forced my views on anyone. I simply state that the current affairs of science education in the US is quite low when compared to other industrialized countries.

    So forgive me if I do not immediately buy into the idea that people are generally well informed when it comes to res scientifica.

    I will grant you that people do generally have a decent BS radar, and that is what can potentially slow down the rush to correct a problem that humans had little, if any, role in creating.

    Dr. K (5139b5)

  42. Quote:

    We are, most of us, not qualified in any way, shape, or form to make any kind of technical or scientific judgment on most of the evidence relating to climate change unless we happen to hold an advanced technical degree and are able to examine that evidence in its totality and not pick and choose headlines that bolster one’s political position on the issue.

    I disagree. I’m a chemist, not a climatologist, but the evidence for global warming is perfectly understandable for someone who has taken even freshman chemistry–in fact, at my college, global warming was used as a demonstration of basic chemical principles. Pretending that this is like learning Arabic only creates controversy where there is none.

    In the scientific community that I know and participate in, this sort of argument is regarded with a sort of head-scratching shrug. There is almost no controversy about global warming in the scientific community.

    However, that doesn’t mean that the supposed solutions to global warming are beyond criticism. This is where I think the real debate should be happening–carbon tax, cap-and-trade, lifestyle modification–what the hell do we do? It seems to me that what we’re really going to have to do is learn to live with a warmer planet.

    Russell (5ecf4a)

  43. Russel:

    First prove that humans caused the problem, then we’ll talk about how we change behaviors.

    You have already decided that humans have caused it – where’s the proof?

    Remember – correlation does not imply causation. And remember Langmuir’s methods on how to identify pathological science.

    The science is far from conclusively proven to the degree that would constitute “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

    Dr. K (5139b5)

  44. This is pretty interesting.
    It’s the almost complete solar cycle as viewed by the SoHo satellite. Normally an eleven year composite would be a complete cycle, but since the scientists don’t consider the current cycle as complete until the next bout of sunspots appear, solar cycle #23 has not officially come to a close yet.
    Here’s what the sun looks like today.
    That little spot in the middle is invisible with my telescope.

    papertiger (3b614c)

  45. And arrogant, asinine condescension from people who don’t believe any opinion can have value unless blessed by academia.

    Stahiu3 – I’m with you here. Steve Mcintyre, who has been doing great work blowing holes in the AGW models is not a trained physicist or climatologist. The evil Dr. K seems to want to shut down debate, but he does have the option of not listening to that which he does not want to hear.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  46. daleyrocks:

    Please try to understand what I have said. Debate is good. By people who know what the hell they are talking about. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of guys sitting around the bar telling us how the world should work.

    Someone who knows mathematical models is perfectly capable of blowing holes in those models, even though he does not have “climatological” training. More power to him.

    But I would trust Mcintyre’s work and analysis more than yours, simply because he has demonstrated some expertise on which he bases his opinions.

    And, by the way – academics ar the major source of the problem.

    Dr. K (5139b5)

  47. Almost twenty years ago, when there was still a lot of debate over whether global warming exists (not the cause or what to do about it), one of America’s leading mathematicians told me that he believed in it, because the insurance companies were quietly altering their weather models to take it into account. That was a good enough argument for me.

    AJL – This is great stuff. Basing opinions on proprietary double secret probation trade secrets. Have any of those insurance companies publicly fessed up yet to taking global warming into account in their claims modeling? If they have, have they quantified the impacts? Catastrophe modeling involves enough SWAGs as it is without layering more complications. Terrorism modeling was a real treat for the insurance industry post 9/11.

    I think your mathematician friend or you are full of shit.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  48. Dr. K – You gave no frame of reference for your comments here other than arrogance. Now that you have provided one, I can partially agree with some of your points. I think the BS detector of ordinary Americans is fairly good as well and that the rush to jam AGW down everyone’s throats, with well documented data and model problems, as well as an inability duplicate results meant we were being sold a bill of goods. The way the data was being guarded and manipulated cried out fraud. None of that took advanced scientific or mathematical training to see.

    “But I would trust Mcintyre’s work and analysis more than yours, simply because he has demonstrated some expertise on which he bases his opinions.”

    I don’t gainsay you this because I have not demonstrated anything technical on this blog, but then again you have not demonstrated any expertise either. All you have done is stated unverifiable qualifications while insulting others attempting to learn about subjects which interest them. Bravo!

    daleyrocks (906622)

  49. I don’t know for a fact whether global warming/global cooling/global staying-the-same/whatever is true or not. I don’t believe in global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, but am willing to listen. To be told that whatever I listen to and whatever I decide is moot because I don’t have a degree in climatology, so I need to accept somebody else’s control over my life is baloney. The global warming alarmists can bite me, right alongside anyone who wants to dismiss my opinion because my degree is in a different field.

    Dr. K, we appear to have similar opinions on this. My objection is to the manner with which you dismiss others outside your (or a related) field.

    – From a person trained extensively in the scientific method.

    Believe it or not, scientific method is used in a lot of fields.

    You first say this:

    So, you are saying that because I do not hold a JD, I am perfectly competent to comment on legal decisions? Cool! When can I start my practice?

    Followed by this later:

    People think that they know the law but are not trained in it are shown to be fools. People who think they know science but are not trained in it vigorously debate the topic in question without being burdened by logic or facts.

    And finally:

    A jury deliberation is not a legal opinion. It is an assessment of the facts. Juries are instructed in the law for a specific case; jurors are not assumed to be experts in the law.

    Which seems to me a legal opinion from a non-lawyer. Should I dismiss it because of the source? Or consider the argument and come to a reasoned decision?

    And this may not appear arrogant to you, but it does to me:

    Opinions are like noses – everyone has one and they all smell. Unfortunately, uninformed opinions forwarde by someone who has no training in the area are close to worthless. It manifests itself as “Since I have a voice and I really, really care, then if I feel it must be true, it is.”
    Pure rubbish.

    I just do not voice them in an open forum where I can demonstrate my ignorance.

    Apparently, you do.

    Stashiu3 (c8e98a)

  50. Russel:
    First prove that humans caused the problem, then we’ll talk about how we change behaviors.

    And if humans aren’t the cause, then we should do nothing to counteract the effects, no matter how disastrous?! That makes as little sense containing forest fires only if they started by arson or human negligence (e.g., cigarette), but not if they started by lightning. We also have daleyrocks making his usual less-than-brilliant contribution to the discussion:

    I think your mathematician friend or you are full of shit.

    Many, many years later the insurance industry went on the record.

    “Climate change represents an ever-increasing risk, a risk far too great to ignore,” says Clement Booth, a member of the Board of Management at Allianz AG, one of the world’s largest insurance firms.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  51. Someone on a board at an insurance company believes in global warming, therefore it is true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (626b4c)

  52. AJL #50,

    It seems to me that insurers are responding to risk assessment, not climate change per se. For instance, some large home insurers cite climate change as the reason they are refusing to insure new homes in coastal areas. The theory is that recent hurricanes have done a lot of damage in coastal areas, and insurers fear there will be even more hurricanes due to climate change. Maybe this is true, but insurance companies know that sounds a lot better than admitting they don’t want to insure high-risk areas because it eats into profits.

    What if the real culprit is poor zoning laws or homeowner building decisions? Homeowners are building more expensive homes in areas that weren’t available before, such as in flood plains or areas susceptible to high winds. Instead of relatively cheap vacation homes on stilts at the beach (many of which were not insured 25 years ago), people today are building mansions right next to the water. Even if a hurricane only hits an area every 5-10 years, it’s difficult for insurance companies to charge enough to pay off the multi-million dollar losses on those kinds of properties. No wonder they want out of that market.

    DRJ (d8934e)

  53. “We are, most of us, not qualified in any way, shape, or form to make any kind of technical or scientific judgment on most of the evidence relating to climate change unless we happen to hold an advanced technical degree and are able to examine that evidence in its totality and not pick and choose headlines that bolster one’s political position on the issue.”

    The problem is not the lack of advanced technical degrees, the details get complicated but the big picture view is not that hard to understand. The problem is as shown by the comments above most people are unwilling or unable to examine the evidence objectively.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  54. AJL – That article is totally unrelated to your earlier comment you idiot. Try reading and making a connection.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  55. DRJ is one the right track. AJL is mired in spin. Andrew can you find an article ourlining how insurance companies have taken AGW induced catastrophe losses into account in their modeling for pricing or business decision making purposes? As I asked previously, have any quantified the AGW exposures?

    Your patellar reflex responses do not address the subject you yourself raised.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  56. I’ve got a solution DRJ. We could have the government insure those properties.

    Oops. Somebody already thought of that one.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  57. DRJ – We help manage risk. It is what we do. We make decisions based on percentages and potential risks.

    daleyrocks – Linking is a form of art for the leftists. Claim the link says A, and assume that nobody will actually click on the link, because if they do, it rarely says what they claim it says. It is gleenwaldian.

    JD (626b4c)

  58. Moran uses this phrase: “legions of global warming deniers( emphasis added )

    Why should I pay any attention to someone who casts skeptics as being the equivalent of Holocaust “deniers” ? I shouldn’t and I won’t.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  59. Forgive me for not understanding, JD, but you need to clarify your last comment. Are we in agreement on this or are you too polite to say I’m off-track?

    DRJ (d8934e)

  60. global warming deniers is a phrase that has become as meaningless as warmonger, chickenhawk, neocon, evangelical, etc … It is a word not designed to encourage debate, but to shout down people that disagree with you.

    JD (626b4c)

  61. DRJ – I was saying that you were spot-fucking-on.

    The “facts” of global warming have not likely ever been discussed in the halls of our company, and we have been open almost 200 years. The effects of tropical storms, population growth, sprawl, coastal development, and the like are often discussed, at levels much higher than my pay grade.

    JD (626b4c)

  62. DRJ – Nobody, but nobody, has ever accused me of being polite.

    JD (626b4c)

  63. You’ve always been polite to me, JD, and I’m glad we agree. You know a lot more about this subject than I do.

    DRJ (d8934e)

  64. SteveG
    I know that todays weather doesn’t say much about global trends. Of course in the context of 100 billion years of planet earth, all the Nobel prize winners combined don’t know shit either.

    I hope that’s a typo, because the most current guestimate puts the earth’s age at just over 4.5 billion years.

    Taltos (4dc0e8)

  65. SteveG was being as accurate as the AGW prophets, how dare you criticize him.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  66. Guys,
    I’m going to quote the great Heinlein,from his story,”Blow-up”.It’s about a nuclear power plant who a consulting mathematician feels is unsafe.A member of the Board of Directors tells him ,”we believe this plant is safe.”He replies,”But none of you are nuclear physicists.Therefore your opinions are meaningless.”
    I’;m not saying that Al Gore is wrong;stopped clocks and all that says it’s possible he’s right.But I can decline to take seriously the opinion of someone who hasn’t shown the ability to master a complex subject.Americans tend to equate celebrity with ability.I just don’t do this.Apropos to this,I recall when Bianca Jagger(who hasn’t won a Nobel Peace or Lit prize,but is probably dumb enough to do so) declined to debate WFB on Nicaragua when Daniel Ortega was first in power.The reason?”He could make me look ridiculous.”Perhaps she and VP Gore have a low instinct for self preservation.
    I’d like to continue,but it’s snowing again and I must put the car in the garage.

    corwin (ec7524)

  67. DRJ – I am a racist foul-mouthed fucking rube.

    The article that AJL linked to has little to do with insurance companies stepping up to combat global warming, but rather, demonstrates how the market responds to demand. Travlers is giving discounts on premiums. Now, some may suppose that has something to do with their desire to reward people for choosing eco-friendly transportation. Having worked for them in the past, it is far more likely that they are looking to expand their personal lines coverages, and this is a marketing opportunity for them. Friemand’s Fund and their “green” initiative likely has a bit of marketing involved, given all of the free press they have received. A better guess would be that these green alternatives have shown in studies to be more fire retardant as well, thus reducing risk, and overall payouts.

    FWIW – Fireman’s Fund is going to have to change their policy language should they wish to mandate the replacement with “green” materials, as the article suggests.

    JD (626b4c)

  68. DRJ:

    Maybe this is true, but insurance companies know that sounds a lot better than admitting they don’t want to insure high-risk areas because it eats into profits.

    The only reason insuring high-risk areas eats into profits is because insurers can’t price the risk right. If the actuaries could properly assess the risk (a medium-sized “if”) and regulators would allow them to charge premiums commensurate with those risks, insuring high-risk areas would be no more or less profitable than insuring low-risk areas.

    Full disclosure: I work for part of the insurance industry, albeit one that doesn’t insure homes.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  69. DRJ – I am a racist foul-mouthed fucking rube.

    But in a polite way. 😉

    Stashiu3 (c8e98a)

  70. Xrlq – Regulators are a huge issue. Just look at the recent hearings in Florida, where the legislators were questioning the actuarial assumptions in rates being requested. Not because he disagreed with the methodology in and of itself, but because it resulted in a result for more rate. Now, I am not disputing that the legislators have a duty to conduct oversight, and am not blind to the fact that some have overcharged in the past, but the intrusion into insurance has long been simply accepted, when the market remains the best mechanism to sort things out.

    JD (626b4c)

  71. Staishu – I am working on that. I am shooting for impolite, but cannot get that to come across very well. It must be because I am a racist.

    JD (626b4c)

  72. It must be because I am a racist.

    It does become annoying when advocating the rule of law, without regard to race, “proves” you’re a racist, doesn’t it? Happens to me every time. Take care bud.

    Stashiu3 (c8e98a)

  73. Scientists predicted more fires due to global warming and they were right.

    papertiger (f08c5d)

  74. Stashiu – You law abiding advocate of the rule of law racist you.

    JD (626b4c)

  75. Moran uses this phrase: “legions of global warming deniers “( emphasis added )

    yes, immediately after this sentence

    Neither is Nobel Prize winning global warming alarmist and hypocrite Al Gore.

    voiceofreason2 (761731)

  76. You law abiding advocate of the rule of law racist you.

    But I’m (mostly) polite.

    Stashiu3 (c8e98a)

  77. global warming denier has morphed into meaning anyone that does not agree that the earth has already been broiled past Medium Rare, and if we are not careful, alaska is going to turn into Hawaii, The Gulf of Mexico will reach to Arkansas, and if only we did not have an active and properous civilization … The term itself, like so many others, has been bastardized to the point where it no longer has any meaning. Like applying the rule of law is racist. Or telling the truth is a smear. Racist.

    JD (626b4c)

  78. The thing that really made up my mind on global warming was the hockeystick.
    Those PHD professors, who know so much more then the average shmuck, went out of their way – weighting a graph with tree rings from a pine tree that only grows in the perpetually fridged White Mountains of California, so that they could proclaim that right now, this climate is the warmest Earth has ever been.

    Those so called experts that Moran insists we must defer to, they created the lie. All Al did was present it in a movie.
    Micheal Mann, Jim Hansen, Lonnie Thompson, and all the lesser acolytes of Giss, Real Climate, and the IPCC, if they had something besides manipulated charts and climate models, they wouldn’t have to invent lies, like the hockeystick.
    It’s just that simple.

    You don’t need a PHD to understand it.

    papertiger (056b95)

  79. XRLQ #68,

    I agree. Insurance companies are very good at evaluating risk, even in high-risk areas. However, I don’t think they would be allowed to charge the premiums they would have to charge in order to replace scores of million-dollar coastal homes every 5-10 years.

    DRJ (d8934e)

  80. That is why rates go up in Kansas following a particularly nasty storm season. Given the midwest winter to date, the spring is shaping up to be a nasty one.

    JD (626b4c)

  81. DRJ – There are whole jurisdictions where it is not really profitable to write certain lines of business. There are many that we never make an underwriting profit on. Were we able to price our products really consistent with the venue, the people that live in those areas would not be able to afford it, and then we would be accused of price gouging, and having FL representatives micromanaging long-term insurance risk models.

    JD (626b4c)

  82. Absolutely, JD. I live in a low-risk area for insurance purposes (auto and home), yet our rates are always going up because they have to cover the escalating costs in other parts of Texas. And it’s not just natural disasters. Our biggest premium increase came about because of court decisions on mold.

    DRJ (d8934e)

  83. JD and DRJ – I never heard global warming come up in any pricing or risk assessment discussions over the past 15 years and I agree with XRLQ and JD that there are certain risks that are tough to price. On those you just try to get all the rate you can and hope you win your bets. On short tail lines like property and auto you get your answers quickly. On longer tail lines like workers comp, commercial auto, general liability, D&O, and others, you don’t know what your cost of good sold was until years and years down the road.

    The impact of regulators, especially on personal lines, is also a wild card and varies by state. Insurers are also not allowed to reserve for catastrophes (in advance). AJL’s assertion about insurers and AGW, especially given all the debunked hype about global warming, is just laughable on its face for anyone with any knowledge of the industry.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  84. The American Family verdict in TX was one of the all time worst rulings I have ever seen, as has cost policyholders to this day. The bad thing about rulings like that one, or the bad class action punitive one State Farm got, is that even if they get overturned later on down the line, the industry has to account for that risk in pricing.

    We are doing mold remediation on my home right now, and I feel for those people, but that has been a totally media/plaintiff bar driven “crisis”.

    JD (626b4c)

  85. Our biggest premium increase came about because of court decisions on by judges whose heads were filled with mold.

    Fixed it for ya.
    😉

    Stashiu3 (c8e98a)

  86. daley – Bingo. You can add public sector to that list of lines where you cannot determine whether or not a risk was priced appropriately until well into the future.

    JD (626b4c)

  87. The guesstimates on the earth’s age keep getting larger and larger and at the current pace should exceed 100 billion within a century or two… it wasn’t a typo. I pulled the number out of thin air

    SteveG (71dc6f)

  88. I pulled the number out of thin air

    But you didn’t make it look like a hockeystick, so you’ve got that going for you.
    😉

    Stashiu3 (c8e98a)

  89. DRJ – NY has a reputation as a tough insurance regulator and they try to export their regulations to other states. As a result, many carriers set up single state entities to do business in NY in order to avoid those regulators getting their noses under their tent across the rest of the country.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  90. by judges whose heads were filled with mold.

    Spot on assessment there. The AmFam mold verdict in TX is one of the more egregious rulings I have ever seen. Horrific.

    JD (626b4c)

  91. Or, some just choose to not write in NY, due to regulatory encroachment, or in NJ, for bad laws and criminal endeavors. Did I say that? Oops.

    JD (626b4c)

  92. JD – That’s what makes arguing with actuaries fun, if you can get them to talk. Their view of reserves versus management’s versus the outside auditors’ versus the IRS’ versus the shareholders’ versus the regulators’. Some interesting and frequently conflicting views of appropriate reserving levels can pop up.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  93. Don’t forget the rating agencies as well.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  94. I preach reserving to my folks on an hourly basis. There are so many schools of thought, and so many perspective from which reserving can be approached, that it can be really difficult. In the end, if people are recognizing potential exposure, and reserving accurately based on the information available, things will be fine. I am fortunate that the companies I have worked for do not play games with reserving, as I have friends in other companies whose reserving practices tend to change with the stock price.

    JD (626b4c)

  95. JD – Depending on your channel, not writing in NY was not an option for some companies. If you couldn’t avoid it, a stand alone company was a solution.

    We didn’t like the Northeast in general, Florida, South Texas, or California.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  96. We write everywhere, and are aggressively expanding overseas right now, but are far more selective in certain states, to the extent that we can be.

    JD (626b4c)

  97. but are far more selective in certain states, to the extent that we can be.

    Sometimes it’s tough to avoid certain states and instead you have to be selective. California and Florida have had such piss poor regulatory environments it’s tough to trust them, not just in insurance.

    On reserving, the important thing, as you note in consistency, not whipsawing of methodology.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  98. daley – I tell my folks, daily, to ensure that their reserves are correct based on the information that they have available. We have never had any problems with any of the various audiences in handling them in this manner.

    Night, all.

    Racists.

    JD (626b4c)

  99. JD – The IBNR is where the fun is, not the case reserves.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  100. Agreed, but those changes happen far above my pay grade.

    JD (75f5c3)

  101. JD – That’s what I reviewed and set. My rule was to rarely if ever fuck with case reserves.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  102. Founder of the Weather Channel calls for Albore to be sued for his Global Warming Fraud

    PCD (c378fd)

  103. What’s IBNR?

    DRJ (d8934e)

  104. I have degrees in both physics and nuclear engineering, so I’ll comment on Rick’s post this way: poppycock. He makes some valid points, but his overall conclusion is pure, unadulterated poppycock. People don’t know enough about science? Teach them. Science is easy: observe, hypothesize, test and refine hypothesis as needed. If you need to bake your numbers to reach a predefined conclusion ::cough-cough::hockey stick::cough-cough::, but hey, you have a PhD, then I guess it’s okay and everyone should listen to you. Or you cherry pick the data to prove your conclusion. The rest of us should just go along with because you have more paper after your name? Uh no. That’s not how science is supposed to work. Examine the evidence and make the best hypothesis you can. Modify the hypothesis, if needed, instead of shoehorning the results into the answer you want.

    Don’t give me appeals to authority of scientists. I used to do work for some university researchers. Believe me, they are not above playing games with the data to get money. And that experience makes me loathe to let them make decisions for me.

    physics geek (6669a4)

  105. DRJ – Incurred But Not Reported. They are essentially an estimate, based on experience, of losses you have incurred at a given point in time, but which have not yet been reported by your customers or development of existing losses which you expect, but which has not yet occurred. It can be a very significant portion of overall loss reserves depending on the line of insurance.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  106. DRJ – A simple example would be a line of insurance that after two years you expect to experience a 70% loss ratio (pay out 70 cents in claims for every dollar of premiums), based on current trends in pricing, risk selection, claims cost trends, and your historical experience. If your 2006 accident year book of business in that line was only showing a 55% loss ratio based on the work of the people doing the initial reserving and you were confident of your 70% number, you would establish an additional 15% IBNR relative to that accident year premiums for the line to hit your target reserve.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  107. Thanks, Daleyrocks. Are Reserves for known claims and IBNR is for estimated/potential claims? Or are Reserves the preliminary estimates?

    DRJ (d8934e)

  108. IBNR – Incurred But Not Reported.

    JD (0c5b67)

  109. Okay, I looked it up and the source I read says IBNR is a component of overall reserves, just like Daleyrocks said. (It takes me a while.)

    Thanks, guys. It’s good to learn something new every day.

    DRJ (d8934e)

  110. DRJ – Reserves are generally case reserves. x dollars for a collision loss, x dollars for the property damage claim, x dollars for MP, x dollars, for BI, x dollars for UMBI. They are based on known facts of the claim. Initial reserves can be established at factored actuarial levels, and adjusted up or down based on new information. Short explanation – an educated guess on how much the claim is gonna cost.

    IBNR is, in short, losses that statistically are likely to happen during a course of a policy period, but have yet to actually happen, or have happened, and not yet been reported.

    JD (8fd56a)

  111. oops – daley explained it much better than I.

    JD (8fd56a)

  112. DRJ – In some lines in the first few years of an accident year, reserves can be composed largely of IBNR until losses actually develop and are reported. You know they are there, but they haven’t emerged and matured yet, but you need to provide for them based on historical experience, otherwise you can be in deep shit. You do it through IBNR because you don’t have facts to set up case and defend reserves.

    daleyrocks (906622)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1169 secs.