OT: Duke Climate Change Study

111,141 Views | 861 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by burritos
Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In all questions of policy that rely on scientific information, I believe that policy should be informed by the scientific opinion, beginning first with those who specialize in the topic and expanding from there. Where a scientific consensus exists regarding the issue, I believe that consensus should win the day. Now the obvious question: what constitutes a scientific consensus and how can it be demonstrated? This isn't easily resolvable for reasons that are illustrated by the quibbling over the '97%' claim. Individual 'studies of studies' and polls can produce false results for reasons that both are and are not anticipated. The key to me is how the entire collection of consensus-statements overwhelmingly supports a conclusion. I see a huge body of reputable (yes, another problem term) studies done in this century claiming overwhelming majorities (80% or more) of qualifying scientists support the anthropogenic theory and none (that I'm aware of) which claim it doesn't possess at least a majority of support. Under this condition, dickering over the exact percentage of support possessed by the consensus is ridiculous. Anthropogenic climate change IS currently the overwhelmingly supported scientific consensus and that fact should dominate our policy consideration.

Support for anthropogenic climate change is strengthened in my view by the quality of its opposition. Papers that challenge the consensus are characterized by severe methodological flaws. Scientists who write prolifically against climate change are directly subsidized by commercial organizations whose financial interest lie in sabotaging policies designed to combat climate change. The most prominent deniers aren't scientists at all; they're politicians, industrialists, and ideologues. Individuals and groups that promote anthropogenic climate change denial are closely associated with individuals and groups that deny all sorts of other scientific theories which are overwhelmingly supported by world-wide scientific consensus, like evolution through natural selection.

I have known individual conservatives who like Cal88 insist that they have done a sufficient amount of research themselves to demonstrate to their own satisfaction that climate change skepticism is justified. Somehow they have came to believe in some Goldilocks zone of climate knowledge that reveals that justified skepticism, a part of the range greater than common ignorance but less than professional scientific expertise. What makes them think their level of expertise multiplied by the relatively small total volume of effort invested is likely to yield a product that deserves to compete with those produced by actual experts in this scientific field could be dismissed as arrogance, but I applaud it nonetheless. The new idea that changes everything usually seems to come from the unexpected source, and besides that it's always great to see fellow citizens embracing their role in being informed. I do suggest though that they consider more strongly the probability that their amateur efforts have done what they and mine could be expected to do: merely reinforce whatever we were inclined to anticipate. I also would ask that they consider whether they wouldn't expect the weight of scientific consensus that does exist supporting anthropogenic climate change to win in argument if supporting some other policy that they were advocating for, like tax policy.

This isn't about the effectiveness of policies and compacts designed to combat climate change. Conceding to the truth of anthropogenic climate change can be totally separated from the issue of whether or not any of the agreements designed to fight it are either likely to be effective or advisable for the US. It also can be totally separated from the economic consequences of any proposed climate change counter measures. It starts with this theory that science is telling us is true and all these people whose interests are tied to denial are telling us is false. If enough of the remaining sane conservatives could commit to joining the rest of the sane world, things could change.

Of course it's not that easy because any conservative leader who dared to step out of ranks on this issue would become the victim of the conservative mob. Conservatives, spurred by the fossil fuels segment of the energy sector, have made what should just be about the implications of an increasingly large body of peer-reviewed evidence into something wholly political and a critical feature of their nationalist-populist platform. Fossil fuels, which should be viewed as a strategic asset whose use should be weighed only in a sober cost-benefit calculation, are made into part of making America great again. The distribution of localities that heavily rely on fossil fuels is not random. The Top-3 coal producing states in the US are Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky. Oil production is similarly dominated by conservative states (California being a prominent exception). This is not a leftist conspiracy. We are part of a national economy together, we get nothing from damaging these industries or raising energy prices on all of us. This is a conservative conspiracy, an organized resistance movement waged only for the benefit of their constituencies. Someday it will end. We don't know when the end will come, but we do know fossil fuels are doomed. When it's no longer such a strong force within the conservative body politic, there will be a dramatically under-stated turn around. Hardly anyone will be able to be found who will admit to having ever been a sincere denier. They'll all say they really knew it was probably true, they just didn't see how the consequences of action wouldn't be worse for America than the cure. That'll just be a debate for historians though. Everyone will be united behind the truth made even more irrepressible by all the awful **** that we're evidently in for in about 3 generations. Massive heat waves, droughts, radical alterations in micro-climates and weather patterns, radical reconstruction of every ecosystem as its temperature range shifts quickly on geologic time, carbon poisoning the oceans, huge sea level raises...

Mankind is going to survive and continue to prosper technologically/industrially and I expect America to be just fine but a lot of people are probably going to die from this worldwide.
Sebastabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Since folks asked the Scandanavians are freaking out because it's wiping out the entire ecosystem in places where virtually all animals and plants struggle to survive. Everything up here has found a niche and climate change is taking out the niches like a ninja assassin. I'm sure other plants and animals could eventually take their place but what I've also learned over the years in my travels is that humans are extraordinarily bad at seeing the long term consequences of introducing new plants and species into new areas. Where they survive they almost always run rampant because of the lack of natural predators (see e.g. rabbits in Australia). Saying nature is pretty complex is a dramatic understatement.

This is of course in addition to the more prosaic angst of the Icelanders because their farms and roads are being wiped out with glacial melt in a pretty unprecedented way.

My main point though is that Icelanders see climate change every day and it's so extreme that they are just flabbergasted when I tell them this is a political issue in the US. It's like I'm telling them we are having a lively debate down our way about whether water is wet.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sebastabear;842851087 said:

Since folks asked the Scandanavians are freaking out because it's wiping out the entire ecosystem in places where virtually all animals and plants struggle to survive. Everything up here has found a niche and climate change is taking out the niches like a ninja assassin. I'm sure other plants and animals could eventually take their place but what I've also learned over the years in my travels is that humans are extraordinarily bad at seeing the long term consequences of introducing new plants and species into new areas. Where they survive they almost always run rampant because of the lack of natural predators (see e.g. rabbits in Australia). Saying nature is pretty complex is a dramatic understatement.

This is of course in addition to the more prosaic angst of the Icelanders because their farms and roads are being wiped out with glacial melt in a pretty unprecedented way.

My main point though is that Icelanders see climate change every day and it's so extreme that they are just flabbergasted when I tell them this is a political issue in the US. It's like I'm telling them we are having a lively debate down our way about whether water is wet.


No, Cal88 knows better than the Icelanders what's best for their culture, industry, and recreation. He also knows better than what they are seeing and experiencing.
mbBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842851089 said:

No, Cal88 knows better than the Icelanders what's best for their culture, industry, and recreation. He also knows better than what they are seeing and experiencing.


The idea that it affects certain areas without hurting others is not based in any fact if talking to scientists. The graphic posted about vulnerable areas is shocking for its stupidity. Oh yes, a balmy polar Scandinavian region means nothing to those with Malibu beach houses, Jersey shore residents, or the low lying areas of Charleston, New Orleans or Tampa as oceans rise??
The only shocking thing about Climate Change is how did it become a political issue. I guess there are those that are trying to protect industry that might be limited by regulation, so I don't mean to sound naive. But in the science community, this isn't political in the least. There are plenty of what we would consider more conservative leaning folks (on other issues)at the Weather Channel, but whose meteorological backgrounds have them in agreement and concerned over where our Climate is heading.
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forget about climate change-nobody cares about an issue where someone might die somewhere in "the future" If you look at the EPA sources of greenhouse gasses, 59% come from two sources-electricity production and transportation. On both of these there is some consensus- renewables and natural gas continue to gain at coal's expense. Red states produce all of these. On transportation-affordable electric vehicles and mass transit offer hope but the personal behavior remains a big obstacle. A carbon tax would help.

Paris or no Paris, progress will continue to be made on both fronts because that's what we want.
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GB54;842851096 said:

Forget about climate change-nobody cares about an issue where someone might die somewhere in "the future" If you look at the EPA sources of greenhouse gasses, 59% come from two sources-electricity production and transportation. On both of these there is some consensus- renewables and natural gas continue to gain at coal's expense. Red states produce all of these. On transportation-affordable electric vehicles and mass transit offer hope but the personal behavior remains a big obstacle. A carbon tax would help.

Paris or no Paris, progress will continue to be made on both fronts because that's what we want.


Having been to the Norwegian fjords and those of Chile, I have seen first hand the glacial meltdown. Our cruise ship in Chile was sitting in charted waters where 5 years before the face of the glacier sat. Same skipper, same boat, same fjord. I am a believer.

At the same time I could not disagree more with the political dictates and taxes coming down hard on developed nations (USA) and letting less developed nations get by with murder (specifically China and India, but others too). That is not denial, that is a personal judgment of bad economics and politics. My problem is that I feel global warming is real, but it is real within the context of ONE world. And yes, progress should and will be made, because that is what we want, but it should be reasonable progress.
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66;842851100 said:

Having been to the Norwegian fjords and those of Chile, I have seen first hand the glacial meltdown. Our cruise ship in Chile was sitting in charted waters where 5 years before the face of the glacier sat. Same skipper, same boat, same fjord. I am a believer.

At the same time I could not disagree more with the political dictates and taxes coming down hard on developed nations (USA) and letting less developed nations get by with murder (specifically China and India, but others too). That is not denial, that is a personal judgment of bad economics and politics. My problem is that I feel global warming is real, but it is real within the context of ONE world. And yes, progress should and will be made, because that is what we want, but it should be reasonable progress.


But that's my point, the sources are global but the effects will be felt locally and not normally distributed. For many there is no payoff or maybe even benefit so it's silly to frame this as a "go-no go" argument for the earth especially since the causes may be generally accepted but the results are really conjecture. Everyone can do two things that help a lot- use less electricity and drive less. Government's role is to encourage this
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23;842850812 said:

This could be a really dumb questions (since I have no knowledge of the subject at all) but how exactly would Obama be able to fly coach?

How would the security work? Where would the secret service sit? I guess it wouldn't cause a semi commotion if Obama were to walk thru an airport?

All the effort it would take Obama to fly commercial, it would probably be more green to just fly private.


Be like Jimmy!
(Who incidentally installed solar panels on the White House)

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C_Cal;842850965 said:

CT, you took a post of mine from another thread (from another board, even) and used it to revive THIS ONE?!?

That's okay, because my post was in jest. You knew that, right?

Seems pretty obvious to me that we are destroying our environment, one way or another. Just got back from a week in Florida (in-laws live there). The place is insane: They throw out their garbage like we used to 30 years ago, i.e. just about everything goes into the land fill. Bag after bag after bag. Multiply that by several million and it's not hard to envision the future, right there. Guys come into the gated community every week wearing gas masks and spray everything to kill the bugs and the weeds. Not that anybody ventures outside in the summer, because it's so hot and humid, they just stay inside under their air conditioners. I've never even seen a solar panel there (this, in the sunshine state). Any sort of renewable energy vehicle is a rarity, even a Prius.

Science, shmience: I can see where this is headed.


Hi Big C!

No, I did not realize you were being facetious. Thx for the calcification!

I made a commitment to not post in the thread where I found your post, or mention any idiots by name. The topic of your post was climate change, I wanted to read some conversation about it, so I searched for any climate change threads, found this one and voila, I have my chatter! That's what I like about BI, good chatter by an intelligent community I feel I know. There's really only one main member of the community I despise, so he is vanished from my tribe.

PS:
My daughter made me watch Leonardo DiCaprio in Before The Flood. It was spooky scary to hear about how real estate is going gangbusters in FLA, at a time when tides are rising.

This is not science predictions about FLA going under, it's actually already happening. Yet, I have more than a few New England relatives all moving there for their "retirement" years (ages 55 and up, which is young). It's like, wait, you're only adding to the problem.

What I do n't get it what mankind does with these underwater cities (Atlantii?) after the last inhabitants move out. They won't be rebuilt and repaired like New Orleans. They will just be abandoned, globally. Imagine the amount of trash and chemical waste pollution that will put upon the seas! No more seafood, that seems sure.



concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66;842851100 said:

Having been to the Norwegian fjords and those of Chile, I have seen first hand the glacial meltdown. Our cruise ship in Chile was sitting in charted waters where 5 years before the face of the glacier sat. Same skipper, same boat, same fjord. I am a believer.

At the same time I could not disagree more with the political dictates and taxes coming down hard on developed nations (USA) and letting less developed nations get by with murder (specifically China and India, but others too). That is not denial, that is a personal judgment of bad economics and politics. My problem is that I feel global warming is real, but it is real within the context of ONE world. And yes, progress should and will be made, because that is what we want, but it should be reasonable progress.


Wow, that's a sad and sobering testimonial, but unfortunately not unique!

I think the logic behind giving massive breaks to poor nations is that they have massive populations that will very much exacerbate the situation if they develop with old poisonous technologies. We have an opportunity to leapfrog them into healthier alternatives. Their development is coming. Shouldn't the rich West want to manage that?

Come on, now. It's not that hard to see.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom;842851108 said:

Be like Jimmy!
(Who incidentally installed solar panels on the White House)





Be like Jimmy! (Who still has a motorcade.)

[video=youtube;zHi_P0I-CCk][/video]


But seriously -- recent presidents like Obama and the younger Bush are more likely to be targets of revenge-seeking terrorists, or crazy people.

So they probably need extra protection compared to a president who was last president many decades ago.

And that protection will likely make a Delta flight not feasible.

Pictured below is George H.W. Bush with his Secret Service detail. I could imagine Obama's detail being even bigger.

Ex-presidents (and possibly ex-vice presidents like Gore) can't live like normal people. They are prime terrorist targets. Imagine if Jimmy Carter or any ex-president is kidnapped while sitting in traffic? Imagine Trump trying to negotiate their release?

When Obama recently purchased an $8 million mansion in Washington, D.C., some eyebrows were raised.

But Obama can't live in a small house. And a $2 million house in Washington is probably like 4 bedrooms. He needs to be shielded by the public from any potential terrorist act, and he needs to have enough room for his Secret Service detail to be headquartered.



OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom;842851118 said:

Wow, that's a sad and sobering testimonial, but unfortunately not unique!

I think the logic behind giving massive breaks to poor nations is that they have massive populations that will very much exacerbate the situation if they develop with old poisonous technologies. We have an opportunity to leapfrog them into healthier alternatives. Their development is coming. Shouldn't the rich West want to manage that?

Come on, now. It's not that hard to see.


One earth. Not a social project on one side (carbon taxes) and a social benefit on the other (added coal mines). Just not right if you truly think there is climate change, and action is needed.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C_Cal;842850965 said:

CT, you took a post of mine from another thread (from another board, even) and used it to revive THIS ONE?!?

That's okay, because my post was in jest. You knew that, right?

Seems pretty obvious to me that we are destroying our environment, one way or another. Just got back from a week in Florida (in-laws live there). The place is insane: They throw out their garbage like we used to 30 years ago, i.e. just about everything goes into the land fill. Bag after bag after bag. Multiply that by several million and it's not hard to envision the future, right there. Guys come into the gated community every week wearing gas masks and spray everything to kill the bugs and the weeds. Not that anybody ventures outside in the summer, because it's so hot and humid, they just stay inside under their air conditioners. I've never even seen a solar panel there (this, in the sunshine state). Any sort of renewable energy vehicle is a rarity, even a Prius.

Science, shmience: I can see where this is headed.


I believe that the absence of solar panels is due to the tight hold that the local power agencies have on the energy market.
I have heard that if a homeowner wants to install solar panels, the owner must obtain a license as a power company.
Polodad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe;842851139 said:

I believe that the absence of solar panels is due to the tight hold that the local power agencies have on the energy market.
I have heard that if a homeowner wants to install solar panels, the owner must obtain a license as a power company.


We owe so much to Florida. I didn't think much about the state prior to 2000.
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One world perhaps, just not the one Grump lives in. Forget Iceland or Florida. Consider California and the relatively important cities of Sacramento and San Diego. Over hundred years ago both cities suffered regular flooding along their water front. Sacramento took a political decision and the routine flooding stopped. San Diego did not and the flooding continues.

However the future for San diego is worse. Sacramento flooding was due to water runoff from winter storms. San Diego flooding is due to sea water incursion. Over the years Sacramento raised the street level of the city and built flood control projects. San Diego built houses and businesses in the flood plain. With climate change Sacramento should be well protected; with rising sea levels San Diego will be flooded, due to long term political inaction and the rest of the world will not care.


OdontoBear66;842851100 said:

Having been to the Norwegian fjords and those of Chile, I have seen first hand the glacial meltdown. Our cruise ship in Chile was sitting in charted waters where 5 years before the face of the glacier sat. Same skipper, same boat, same fjord. I am a believer.

At the same time I could not disagree more with the political dictates and taxes coming down hard on developed nations (USA) and letting less developed nations get by with murder (specifically China and India, but others too). That is not denial, that is a personal judgment of bad economics and politics. My problem is that I feel global warming is real, but it is real within the context of ONE world. And yes, progress should and will be made, because that is what we want, but it should be reasonable progress.
mbBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For those of you who want continued information from scientists that are truly involved in this daily, I suggest this website.
http://www.climatecentral.org/
For those of you who are educators etc. they can provide resource materials and supportive information.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842851048 said:

Exactly. They never quite get to the point of discussing what percentage of climate scientists don't believe in AGW but guys like Cal88 know every. single. one. of them by name.

I guess it's like listening to comic book collectors argue about whether Superman or Batman would win in a head to head battle and we know what happened there. We all lost.


dajo9;842851024 said:

That's a lot of words to make the point that the correct phrasing is, "97% of climate scientists who expressed an opinion believe in manmade global warming".

What's the point? I'd be so embarrassed to have to defend conservative positions these days. The mental gymnastics one has to go through are laughable.


sycasey;842851051 said:

The best part was closing with a bunch of blog posts written by the Dilbert cartoonist.


Conservatives are anti-science, yet all three of you are defending false numbers and claims that are used to mislead and support alarmist agendas.

Here is an article from today that is directly on point:

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/global-warming-the-imminent-crisis-that-never-arrives/

That article discusses a recent study where the "leading scientists" worshiped by progressives have recently admitted there models are horribly flawed. Yet the science is settled - ok.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/black-monday-for-the-climatistas.php
Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles;842851164 said:

Conservatives are anti-science, yet all three of you are defending false numbers and claims that are used to mislead and support alarmist agendas.

Here is an article from today that is directly on point:

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/global-warming-the-imminent-crisis-that-never-arrives/

That article discusses a recent study where the "leading scientists" worshiped by progressives have recently admitted there models are horribly flawed. Yet the science is settled - ok.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/black-monday-for-the-climatistas.php


Conservatives are desperate for anything to use against climate change action. It's appropriate that Bear Goggles has chosen to cite this IBD article (which itself draws from an article from the hack site wattsupwiththat.com, which does the original misrepresentation of the paper's research) to continue the thread that was begun by another conservative pimping another media outlet misrepresenting another piece of climate research.

They're so desperate they advertise the results of papers where the authors themselves unequivocally support the theory of anthropogenic climate change as support for denial. Their desperation compels them to use the evolving nature of climate research to discredit the conclusions drawn from the totality of research. The paper does not support a pause in global warming, it merely says that actual warming rates were lower than the models used in the recent past have suggested they were. Conservatives intentionally misrepresent this revelation (as is typical of them) like the author of that garbage IBD article did when he claimed the paper validated Scott Pruitt's claim that "over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming." Leveling off implies that the warming had stopped (you know, the entire claim behind the BS 'Pause Movement'). The research being cited says nothing of the sort.

Let's keep our eyes on the ball and let policy be informed by science, rather than science be manipulated by politics. How many climate scientists support the anthropogeic climate change theory? How many oppose it? Does the former group vastly outnumber the latter--is this even in any question? No, of course not, and conservatives should do the right thing which is to stop politicizing this issue and for once be on the side of science rather than on the side of denialists. But that would be asking conservatives to act with political courage and that is not their strong suit. Their strong suit is protecting their own immediate interests, and if they need to get with science deniers (be it climate, evolution, geology, cosmology, social science, ...) they feel no shame in doing so. It's all about winning to them, Win Forever.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NVBear78;842850816 said:

Bring it on, haven't heard a technical word from you yet. I read everything I can on climate change including all the predictions that have proved to be false.


So you're just smarter than the science community.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842850875 said:

Tribal politics. The more a conservative knows about science the less likely they are to believe in climate change.

http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/why-do-most-american-conservatives-still-refuse-to-believe-in-climate-change


If congress split straight along party lines in its steroid investigation of MLB, what makes us think we're capable of rational debate on anything.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842851079 said:

As for politicization of AGW, you can read the post that you responded to where I addressed it. You can probably tell me how it's also politicized in Syria or some such place and ignore the vast majority of civilization since that is a staple of the AGW skeptic policy manual.

As for AGW skeptics, I also already stated that I was aware you can name every scientist who is a skeptic. You doing so individually is a demonstration of a point I made.

As for migration, you provide charts showing vulnerability to climate change and projected changes in agricultural productivity which I interpreted using my leet STEM skills. I don't think it is a great leap to assume people will abandon arid homes to net migrate to what has become the most fertile land on the planet. People are already arguing that the political instability in the places you mentioned is driven in part by lack of resources including in some cases from changes in climate (which no doubt you will conclude both doesn't exist and if it did exist would actually be a boon to their societies)


Unit2: if you have STEM skills, as you claim, you would have run the other way when first you read, "The science is settled."

But, for whatever reason, you seem to be unswayed (so far) by actual DATA, INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE.

Note well that whenever a reader such as Cal88 posts hard evidence, it is never countered by other hard evidence. Just rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. That is because the CC movement is a belief system in support of a political agenda. Its adherents are determined to keep repeating the same beliefs (charitably) in the hopes that they will be believed by others.

To expect a different outcome is a waste of time. But, it must be confronted when it appears, lest others think that theirs is the only answer and, therefore, "settled."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear;842851216 said:

Unit2: if you have STEM skills, as you claim, you would have run the other way when first you read, "The science is settled."

But, for whatever reason, you seem to be unswayed (so far) by actual DATA, INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE.

Note well that whenever a reader such as Cal88 posts hard evidence, it is never countered by other hard evidence. Just rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. That is because the CC movement is a belief system in support of a political agenda. Its adherents are determined to keep repeating the same beliefs (charitably) in the hopes that they will be believed by others.

To expect a different outcome is a waste of time. But, it must be confronted when it appears, lest others think that theirs is the only answer and, therefore, "settled."


Cal88 hasn't been posting hard evidence against climate change. He's mostly been posting nice charts that show how good climate change is.
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842851218 said:

Cal88 hasn't been posting hard evidence against climate change. He's mostly been posting nice charts that show how good climate change is.


dajo....If you wanted to help a discussion of some sort, and even be impactful with those who may disagree with you, why not discuss the issues on the table, versus attacks. I have said clearly very recently that I have seen the effects of GW. I am a believer that changes are happening. Exactly why should be continually discussed. Science is never "settled". That type of terminology should turn you off if you subscribe to the intellectuality you profess. Science is always a query. That doesn't mean GW should or shouldn't be attacked, but overly impassioned verbiage does not help ones posture.

My biggest problem currently is the economic dictates with which I do not agree. Coal good in China and India, bad in USA when you tax carbon. Not good.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66;842851219 said:

dajo....If you wanted to help a discussion of some sort, and even be impactful with those who may disagree with you, why not discuss the issues on the table, versus attacks. I have said clearly very recently that I have seen the effects of GW. I am a believer that changes are happening. Exactly why should be continually discussed. Science is never "settled". That type of terminology should turn you off if you subscribe to the intellectuality you profess. Science is always a query. That doesn't mean GW should or shouldn't be attacked, but overly impassioned verbiage does not help ones posture.

My biggest problem currently is the economic dictates with which I do not agree. Coal good in China and India, bad in USA when you tax carbon. Not good.


Odonto, I'm not an expert on the science or the policy remedies so I'm not comfortable debating those details. It is clear to me what the experts believe and I support efforts to reduce the impact of global warming - in broad terms because I have not researched the specifics, which are nearly irrelevant because our President believes global warming is a Chinese hoax and posters like Cal88 support a Putin agenda.

I am comfortable attacking people who say ridiculous things, like that criticizing Leonardo diCaprio is anything relevant, or that a poster here knows better than the Icelanders about what is good for them. Unlike many posters here, I am not comfortable making factual statements, being proven wrong, and then continuing about my business posting other factual statements that are proven to be wrong. So on details I tend to stick to areas of my expertise, and I'll let the experts in the field speak for themselves on scientific matters, of which there are plenty on this board.

For me to participate in the details you will likely have to engage in a strictly economic or political discussion. Otherwise, I'm always ready to publicly humiliate stupid right wing propaganda on any topic.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842851221 said:

Odonto, I'm not an expert on the science or the policy remedies so I'm not comfortable debating those details. It is clear to me what the experts believe and I support efforts to reduce the impact of global warming - in broad terms because I have not researched the specifics, which are nearly irrelevant because our President believes global warming is a Chinese hoax and posters like Cal88 support a Putin agenda.

I am comfortable attacking people who say ridiculous things, like that criticizing Leonardo diCaprio is anything relevant, or that a poster here knows better than the Icelanders about what is good for them. Unlike many posters here, I am not comfortable making factual statements, being proven wrong, and then continuing about my business posting other factual statements that are proven to be wrong. So on details I tend to stick to areas of my expertise, and I'll let the experts in the field speak for themselves on scientific matters, of which there are plenty on this board.

For me to participate in the details you will likely have to engage in a strictly economic or political discussion. Otherwise, I'm always ready to publicly humiliate stupid right wing propaganda on any topic.


This defies explanation, "Odonto, I'm not an expert on the science or the policy remedies so I'm not comfortable debating those details. It is clear to me what the experts believe and I support efforts to reduce the impact of global warming - in broad terms because I have not researched the specifics, which are nearly irrelevant." It is utterly flabbergasting that someone associating himself with a world class university can admit to such a thing.

So, dajo relies on scientists to do his thinking and speaking for him. Except that they're only the scientists who agree with his premise (and, apparently, his agenda).

There IS another group of climate scientists who reject the CC premise. You can start with Dr. Judith Curry, Chair, Dept. of Climate Science, Georgia Tech Univ. This article ought to get you started:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980?tesla=y

Except, I'm wasting my time, again, knowing that no amount of reason will get through.

Look, we all need to be good stewards of the planet ("all" meaning all mankind), but OWO has nothing to do with global climate except as a pretext by which to extort vast sums while putting nations not named the United States of American in charge.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear;842851233 said:

This defies explanation, "Odonto, I'm not an expert on the science or the policy remedies so I'm not comfortable debating those details. It is clear to me what the experts believe and I support efforts to reduce the impact of global warming - in broad terms because I have not researched the specifics, which are nearly irrelevant." It is utterly flabbergasting that someone associating himself with a world class university can admit to such a thing.

So, dajo relies on scientists to do his thinking and speaking for him. Except that they're only the scientists who agree with his premise (and, apparently, his agenda).

There IS another group of climate scientists who reject the CC premise. You can start with Dr. Judith Curry, Chair, Dept. of Climate Science, Georgia Tech Univ. This article ought to get you started:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980?tesla=y

Except, I'm wasting my time, again, knowing that no amount of reason will get through.

Look, we all need to be good stewards of the planet ("all" meaning all mankind), but OWO has nothing to do with global climate except as a pretext by which to extort vast sums while putting nations not named the United States of American in charge.


In my opinion, only a stupid person would claim to have an expert grasp on all matters - but we are all different. Reliance on experts is a source of strength, not weakness.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is one cold a$$ thread.
Lol
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842851241 said:

Reliance on experts is a source of strength, not weakness.


This seems to be the core issue at hand now. Expertise has been devalued over the last few decades in American society (and government), and Trump and the current Republican Congress are the result.

We'll see how this turns out, but history suggests we are about due for a backlash.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses;842851252 said:

This is one cold a$$ thread.
Lol


Thought it was a warming thread.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66;842851219 said:

dajo....If you wanted to help a discussion of some sort, and even be impactful with those who may disagree with you, why not discuss the issues on the table, versus attacks. I have said clearly very recently that I have seen the effects of GW. I am a believer that changes are happening. Exactly why should be continually discussed. Science is never "settled". That type of terminology should turn you off if you subscribe to the intellectuality you profess. Science is always a query. That doesn't mean GW should or shouldn't be attacked, but overly impassioned verbiage does not help ones posture.

My biggest problem currently is the economic dictates with which I do not agree. Coal good in China and India, bad in USA when you tax carbon. Not good.


If the argument is economic, and the trends clear, why not get out in front of it and dominate the opportunity ahead of others?
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842851241 said:

In my opinion, only a stupid person would claim to have an expert grasp on all matters - but we are all different. Reliance on experts is a source of strength, not weakness.


If I don't have an expert grasp, then I wash my hands of all personal responsibility to learn what I can and be an informed citizen.

Reliance on experts is a source of strength, except when they don't agree and when I choose not to become familiar with even the lay level of understanding, such as the basic scientific method. That I should have learned in 7th grade.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother;842851256 said:

If the argument is economic, and the trends clear, why not get out in front of it and dominate the opportunity ahead of others?


The economic argument against action on climate change becomes weaker every day (and it's already pretty weak). It's become pretty obvious that the money will be in renewable energy in the future. Businesses are not stupid. They know that the most polluting energy sources (coal and oil) are finite and won't last forever. It's worth their while to invest in cleaner sources.

Add to that the benefits of reducing our dependence on resources from a violent and politically-fraught region of the world (the Middle East), and it seems like a no-brainer to embrace this change, regardless of whether predictions of global climate change are "alarmist" or not. I'm sure there are individual industries and regions that will be negatively impacted as well -- such is the case with all change -- but that is an argument for implementing policies and programs to help those people transition to the new reality, not for taking us backwards.

Given all of that, the current conservative/Republican denialist dogma is frankly baffling. Seems like the only reason to be against it is because the "liberal elites" support it. It's a purely stubborn cultural argument.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear;842851268 said:

If I don't have an expert grasp, then I wash my hands of all personal responsibility to learn what I can and be an informed citizen.

Reliance on experts is a source of strength, except when they don't agree and when I choose not to become familiar with even the lay level of understanding, such as the basic scientific method. That I should have learned in 7th grade.


There is a lot of ground between being an informed citizen and an expert. I am an informed citizen. I have certainly read up on the matter enough to come to conclusions about the overall issue. However, I'm not going to engage in detailed debates in an area where I don't feel I have an expert grasp. Many on this board do - perhaps you are one of them.

Brings to mind what somebody once said about Newt Gingrich - he is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. Thinking one can be an expert on all the controversial issues debated on these boards is something close to that. But not being an expert doesn't mean a person doesn't have enough information to take a political stance.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I love that you guys throw our Judith Curry as if she's some shining beacon who has disproven AGW. I looked her up. In 2005, she wrote a big paper saying that AGW would lead to more extreme hurricanes. She now has migrated from agreeing with the scientific consensus on AGW to saying that AGW is likely to be occurring and may or may not be as bad as other scientists fear. She worries about the costs of dealing with the problem. She is basically shrugging at the issue and she's the foremost "expert" on the side of the skeptics.

The case by the skeptics is more conspiracy theory than science.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842851275 said:

There is a lot of ground between being an informed citizen and an expert. I am an informed citizen. I have certainly read up on the matter enough to come to conclusions about the overall issue. However, I'm not going to engage in detailed debates in an area where I don't feel I have an expert grasp. Many on this board do - perhaps you are one of them.

Brings to mind what somebody once said about Newt Gingrich - he is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. Thinking one can be an expert on all the controversial issues debated on these boards is something close to that. But not being an expert doesn't mean a person doesn't have enough information to take a political stance.


sycasey;842851254 said:

This seems to be the core issue at hand now. Expertise has been devalued over the last few decades in American society (and government), and Trump and the current Republican Congress are the result.

We'll see how this turns out, but history suggests we are about due for a backlash.



The single greatest cause for "devaluing expertise" has been one set of experts - and their POLITICAL (not scientific) supporters - claiming that the science is settled and throwing out factually wrong (or in some cases misleading) 95%/97% statements while at the same time promulgating wildly inaccurate and alarmist models. When you do that, people tend to doubt the so called experts or come to believe that the experts' claimed certainty is suspect.

You don't win scientific arguments by claiming that everyone you know agrees with you - you win the argument by proving that your theories and data are accurate. But the climate "experts" can't do that, because human/scientific understanding of climate is very limited. Rather than admitting that - which would not serve their political ends - they dissemble.

sycasey;842851270 said:

The economic argument against action on climate change becomes weaker every day (and it's already pretty weak). It's become pretty obvious that the money will be in renewable energy in the future. Businesses are not stupid. They know that the most polluting energy sources (coal and oil) are finite and won't last forever. It's worth their while to invest in cleaner sources.

Add to that the benefits of reducing our dependence on resources from a violent and politically-fraught region of the world (the Middle East), and it seems like a no-brainer to embrace this change, regardless of whether predictions of global climate change are "alarmist" or not. I'm sure there are individual industries and regions that will be negatively impacted as well -- such is the case with all change -- but that is an argument for implementing policies and programs to help those people transition to the new reality, not for taking us backwards.

Given all of that, the current conservative/Republican denialist dogma is frankly baffling. Seems like the only reason to be against it is because the "liberal elites" support it. It's a purely stubborn cultural argument.


I think you misstate what is happening. It is not an economic argument for or against climate change. It is just the economy at work - in the US and Europe business will respond to their customers' preferences and to peer/shareholder pressure. That is why many business have pursued "green" policies - which for the record I think is a good thing for the most part. But those business will never put their overall economic viability or well being ahead of those initiatives - businesses engage in cost-benefits analysis that many on the left are not willing to engage in or discuss.

I actually agree with your thoughts on energy independence and reducing reliance on Middle Eastern oil. But your ignoring the reality that the clearest and fastest path to achieve that is through US domestic gas and oil production (including fracking). For some reason you're not prepared to consider that type of "change" as opposed to renewable energies.

Finally, while I don't speak for anyone but myself, the notion of conservative "denialist dogma" is silly. It is not denialist to : (i) assert that the [U]extent[/U] of human-caused climate change is not known or "settled"; (ii) assert that climate is not well understood by the so called experts, as evidenced by their inaccurate models; (iii) question the current alarmist predictions given that past alarmist predictions (by many of the same people) have been demonstrably false; (iv) question whether the proposed solutions (Paris Accords and the like) have real benefits; and (v) ask for real cost-benefit analysis with regard to proposed policies.

These are not unreasonable or extreme positions. And labeling them as such (or Dajo calling people with these views stupid) doesn't do much to advance your arguments or persuade people.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.