bearister said:
IPCC report: Effects of climate change even more severe, sooner than we thought - Axios
What the hell is this pic.twitter.com/Y8qc4yC2J8
— Ian Miles Cheong @ stillgray.substack.com (@stillgray) October 17, 2021
bearister said:
Climate Activists staged an insurrection at a government building yesterday, breaking into the Department of the Interior, trying to push past an officer to get inside
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 15, 2021
Explain to me why this Jan 6th-like behavior wasn’t covered AT ALL.
pic.twitter.com/69JxKD48Mo
Unit2,Unit2Sucks said:So what do you propose? You obviously don't understand how modeling of complex systems works so what "balanced approach" do you favor? Would you do nothing at this point? Your statement about "locking in increasing pollution" is non-sensical - nothing prevents China/India from reducing their emissions more than they've agreed to in the Paris Accords. The rest of the world (including the US) intends to do so.BearGoggles said:We finally agree. You are confused. I would say more than a bit.Unit2Sucks said:The models have long predicted that greenhouse emissions would lead to climate change. Everyone (aside from a small bit vocal minority in this country consistently almost entirely of conservatives) understands that and has acknowledged for over a decade that action was needed. The models have improved with each generation.BearGoggles said:Unit2Sucks said:Classic post.BearGoggles said:That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.Unit2Sucks said:I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.BearGoggles said:
We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..
Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"
My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.
We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.
If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.
I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.
The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.
Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)
During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.
PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.
Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.
So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.
I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.
My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.
To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:
"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."
Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?
Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:
You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?
You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?
Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?
You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?
You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.
Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"
So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.
And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
If you somehow think there is an argument to be made that we shouldn't do anything because the models aren't "accurate" then I would ask why you would take medication when your doctor can't tell you precisely when you will die from complications resulting from high cholesterol. You don't need your doctor to accurately predict how and when you will suffer from high cholesterol for you to take action now. The fact that the medication works is similar to reducing greenhouse emissions. We know it will work.
As for all of your other stuff, it's sad to see you play the victim card. Woe is BG, a poor misunderstood conservative. Maybe you should go find a safe place away from message boards where people might interpret your words reasonably.
I am a bit confused though. Are you now saying you don't support any action to address climate change because of the models or because of China and India or because Republicans oppose action and you don't feel required to disagree with the politicians you support because I haven't called for Pelosi's resignation for eating ice cream. Or is it from having dinner outdoors?
And no - it I don't oppose "any action" to address climate change - once again you make an allegation based partly as an ad hominin attack and partly to distract.
To repeat (in another attempt to allay your confusion). I just don't think the people making the flawed models - and their alarmist historically false and wildly inaccurate predictions - should be the people making policy. I support a balanced approach, with analysis of costs and benefits, where we don't enter into agreements like the Paris Accords that literally don't help (and arguably make things worse by locking in increasing pollution from China and India).
By the way, enough with the victim card. Pretending that ever criticism of your poor arguments is an ad hominem attack might fly in your bubble but it's pretty transparent here.
Unless you tell us otherwise, it appears you would do absolutely nothing on any front until some point in the future where we have perfect information. That's indistinguishable from the people in our country advocating for increasing our carbon emissions and ignoring the threat of climate change.
I have a degree from the best engineering school in the country but I'm not a climate scientist nor do I need to be to know that there is a scientific consensus.SFCityBear said:Unit2,Unit2Sucks said:So what do you propose? You obviously don't understand how modeling of complex systems works so what "balanced approach" do you favor? Would you do nothing at this point? Your statement about "locking in increasing pollution" is non-sensical - nothing prevents China/India from reducing their emissions more than they've agreed to in the Paris Accords. The rest of the world (including the US) intends to do so.BearGoggles said:We finally agree. You are confused. I would say more than a bit.Unit2Sucks said:The models have long predicted that greenhouse emissions would lead to climate change. Everyone (aside from a small bit vocal minority in this country consistently almost entirely of conservatives) understands that and has acknowledged for over a decade that action was needed. The models have improved with each generation.BearGoggles said:Unit2Sucks said:Classic post.BearGoggles said:That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.Unit2Sucks said:I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.BearGoggles said:
We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..
Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"
My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.
We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.
If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.
I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.
The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.
Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)
During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.
PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.
Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.
So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.
I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.
My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.
To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:
"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."
Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?
Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:
You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?
You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?
Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?
You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?
You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.
Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"
So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.
And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
If you somehow think there is an argument to be made that we shouldn't do anything because the models aren't "accurate" then I would ask why you would take medication when your doctor can't tell you precisely when you will die from complications resulting from high cholesterol. You don't need your doctor to accurately predict how and when you will suffer from high cholesterol for you to take action now. The fact that the medication works is similar to reducing greenhouse emissions. We know it will work.
As for all of your other stuff, it's sad to see you play the victim card. Woe is BG, a poor misunderstood conservative. Maybe you should go find a safe place away from message boards where people might interpret your words reasonably.
I am a bit confused though. Are you now saying you don't support any action to address climate change because of the models or because of China and India or because Republicans oppose action and you don't feel required to disagree with the politicians you support because I haven't called for Pelosi's resignation for eating ice cream. Or is it from having dinner outdoors?
And no - it I don't oppose "any action" to address climate change - once again you make an allegation based partly as an ad hominin attack and partly to distract.
To repeat (in another attempt to allay your confusion). I just don't think the people making the flawed models - and their alarmist historically false and wildly inaccurate predictions - should be the people making policy. I support a balanced approach, with analysis of costs and benefits, where we don't enter into agreements like the Paris Accords that literally don't help (and arguably make things worse by locking in increasing pollution from China and India).
By the way, enough with the victim card. Pretending that ever criticism of your poor arguments is an ad hominem attack might fly in your bubble but it's pretty transparent here.
Unless you tell us otherwise, it appears you would do absolutely nothing on any front until some point in the future where we have perfect information. That's indistinguishable from the people in our country advocating for increasing our carbon emissions and ignoring the threat of climate change.
Climate change, and the science it is based on, Paleoclimatology, are relatively new concepts in the course of human history. In my lifetime this science has gone from it being first invented or given a name, to seeing scientists promote their fears of its consequences. First, the fear of global cooling in the 1970s, followed by the fear of global warming in the 1980s, to changing the name of that fear to "climate change", followed by the theory that this change was caused by the activity of humans. Politicians and governments have responded to this, and worldwide media has also chosen to make it a major issue for mankind to be educated about.
You have made a number of very strong statements in this thread, declaring that you know the truth about climate change, whether it exists, and what causes it, and if someone were to disagree with you, then he would be ignorant, or just doesn't have the understanding that you possess. I am wondering therefore, are you a scientist, or a layman? If you are a scientist, then what are your credentials? Have you done scientific research or have you read any of the research papers that have been published? And if you are not a scientist and are a layman, what sources have you used to help you formulate your opinions?
Watch as Sky News Australia rips a new one for Greta. This would never happen in Canada, USA, or Europe. Three Cheers! pic.twitter.com/OqWqMQaYg0
— Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) October 22, 2021
That was data from early this year. It would be interesting to see a newer poll now that we've had a summer of record setting heatwaves and flash flooding.bearister said:
Axios
Excellent dodge of the question. And calling SFCityBear a climate denier just because he asked you questions in a pretty polite way is revealing. Always name calling and ad hominem. Seriously - why are you so angry?Unit2Sucks said:I have a degree from the best engineering school in the country but I'm not a climate scientist nor do I need to be to know that there is a scientific consensus.SFCityBear said:Unit2,Unit2Sucks said:So what do you propose? You obviously don't understand how modeling of complex systems works so what "balanced approach" do you favor? Would you do nothing at this point? Your statement about "locking in increasing pollution" is non-sensical - nothing prevents China/India from reducing their emissions more than they've agreed to in the Paris Accords. The rest of the world (including the US) intends to do so.BearGoggles said:We finally agree. You are confused. I would say more than a bit.Unit2Sucks said:The models have long predicted that greenhouse emissions would lead to climate change. Everyone (aside from a small bit vocal minority in this country consistently almost entirely of conservatives) understands that and has acknowledged for over a decade that action was needed. The models have improved with each generation.BearGoggles said:Unit2Sucks said:Classic post.BearGoggles said:That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.Unit2Sucks said:I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.BearGoggles said:
We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..
Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"
My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.
We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.
If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.
I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.
The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.
Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)
During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.
PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.
Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.
So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.
I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.
My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.
To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:
"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."
Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?
Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:
You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?
You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?
Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?
You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?
You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.
Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"
So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.
And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
If you somehow think there is an argument to be made that we shouldn't do anything because the models aren't "accurate" then I would ask why you would take medication when your doctor can't tell you precisely when you will die from complications resulting from high cholesterol. You don't need your doctor to accurately predict how and when you will suffer from high cholesterol for you to take action now. The fact that the medication works is similar to reducing greenhouse emissions. We know it will work.
As for all of your other stuff, it's sad to see you play the victim card. Woe is BG, a poor misunderstood conservative. Maybe you should go find a safe place away from message boards where people might interpret your words reasonably.
I am a bit confused though. Are you now saying you don't support any action to address climate change because of the models or because of China and India or because Republicans oppose action and you don't feel required to disagree with the politicians you support because I haven't called for Pelosi's resignation for eating ice cream. Or is it from having dinner outdoors?
And no - it I don't oppose "any action" to address climate change - once again you make an allegation based partly as an ad hominin attack and partly to distract.
To repeat (in another attempt to allay your confusion). I just don't think the people making the flawed models - and their alarmist historically false and wildly inaccurate predictions - should be the people making policy. I support a balanced approach, with analysis of costs and benefits, where we don't enter into agreements like the Paris Accords that literally don't help (and arguably make things worse by locking in increasing pollution from China and India).
By the way, enough with the victim card. Pretending that ever criticism of your poor arguments is an ad hominem attack might fly in your bubble but it's pretty transparent here.
Unless you tell us otherwise, it appears you would do absolutely nothing on any front until some point in the future where we have perfect information. That's indistinguishable from the people in our country advocating for increasing our carbon emissions and ignoring the threat of climate change.
Climate change, and the science it is based on, Paleoclimatology, are relatively new concepts in the course of human history. In my lifetime this science has gone from it being first invented or given a name, to seeing scientists promote their fears of its consequences. First, the fear of global cooling in the 1970s, followed by the fear of global warming in the 1980s, to changing the name of that fear to "climate change", followed by the theory that this change was caused by the activity of humans. Politicians and governments have responded to this, and worldwide media has also chosen to make it a major issue for mankind to be educated about.
You have made a number of very strong statements in this thread, declaring that you know the truth about climate change, whether it exists, and what causes it, and if someone were to disagree with you, then he would be ignorant, or just doesn't have the understanding that you possess. I am wondering therefore, are you a scientist, or a layman? If you are a scientist, then what are your credentials? Have you done scientific research or have you read any of the research papers that have been published? And if you are not a scientist and are a layman, what sources have you used to help you formulate your opinions?
The "fear" of global cooling in the 70's is just a mischaracterization of history. More people were worried about global warming than cooling. There were a few headlines about cooling and some identified it as a possible risk, but far more were concerned about warming. You, and other climate change deniers, bring this up to discredit science. The world over everyone understands that climate change is an issue and as far as I can tell US conservatives are the only group of people in the world who are challenging it. It's not a political topic anywhere else in the world. There are very few scientists challenging the broad consensus but quite a few Republican funded think tanks who overstate the contrarian case.
I criticized BG's view on modeling because he mischaracterized the state of climate models. He's done this time and time again with modeling, including COVID models because he doesn't know the first thing about models. I don't know what his academic or professional background is but it's obvious he doesn't have familiarity with how complex models and forecasting works. I happen to have professional experience working with modelers, in addition to my technical background, so perhaps I have a bit more perspective, but I'm not claiming to be an expert. Just someone who can spot the obvious politically motivated misinformation.
chazzed said:
Yeah, we are up the creek. It does not take a genius to see that.
NEW - Biden falls asleep at #COP26 "climate change" conference. pic.twitter.com/Y5hR7CCghn
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) November 1, 2021
MinotStateBeav said:
400 private planes flew into COP26 to discuss climate change lol. I guess we should be thankful they didn't all arrive in cruise ships.
JUST IN - Jeff Bezos's $65m Gulf Stream leads parade of 400 private jets into #COP26, including scores of royals and "green" CEOs (Daily)
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) November 1, 2021
Wouldn't a zoom meeting have been more beneficial?BearForce2 said:MinotStateBeav said:
400 private planes flew into COP26 to discuss climate change lol. I guess we should be thankful they didn't all arrive in cruise ships.JUST IN - Jeff Bezos's $65m Gulf Stream leads parade of 400 private jets into #COP26, including scores of royals and "green" CEOs (Daily)
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) November 1, 2021
It's must more rules for thee but not for me.
I didn't dodge any question. SFCB asked me what my qualifications were and I was transparent in my response.BearGoggles said:Excellent dodge of the question. And calling SFCityBear a climate denier just because he asked you questions in a pretty polite way is revealing. Always name calling and ad hominem. Seriously - why are you so angry?Unit2Sucks said:I have a degree from the best engineering school in the country but I'm not a climate scientist nor do I need to be to know that there is a scientific consensus.SFCityBear said:Unit2,Unit2Sucks said:So what do you propose? You obviously don't understand how modeling of complex systems works so what "balanced approach" do you favor? Would you do nothing at this point? Your statement about "locking in increasing pollution" is non-sensical - nothing prevents China/India from reducing their emissions more than they've agreed to in the Paris Accords. The rest of the world (including the US) intends to do so.BearGoggles said:We finally agree. You are confused. I would say more than a bit.Unit2Sucks said:The models have long predicted that greenhouse emissions would lead to climate change. Everyone (aside from a small bit vocal minority in this country consistently almost entirely of conservatives) understands that and has acknowledged for over a decade that action was needed. The models have improved with each generation.BearGoggles said:Unit2Sucks said:Classic post.BearGoggles said:That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.Unit2Sucks said:I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.BearGoggles said:
We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..
Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"
My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.
We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.
If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.
I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.
The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.
Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)
During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.
PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.
Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.
So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.
I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.
My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.
To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:
"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."
Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?
Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:
You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?
You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?
Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?
You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?
You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.
Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"
So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.
And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
If you somehow think there is an argument to be made that we shouldn't do anything because the models aren't "accurate" then I would ask why you would take medication when your doctor can't tell you precisely when you will die from complications resulting from high cholesterol. You don't need your doctor to accurately predict how and when you will suffer from high cholesterol for you to take action now. The fact that the medication works is similar to reducing greenhouse emissions. We know it will work.
As for all of your other stuff, it's sad to see you play the victim card. Woe is BG, a poor misunderstood conservative. Maybe you should go find a safe place away from message boards where people might interpret your words reasonably.
I am a bit confused though. Are you now saying you don't support any action to address climate change because of the models or because of China and India or because Republicans oppose action and you don't feel required to disagree with the politicians you support because I haven't called for Pelosi's resignation for eating ice cream. Or is it from having dinner outdoors?
And no - it I don't oppose "any action" to address climate change - once again you make an allegation based partly as an ad hominin attack and partly to distract.
To repeat (in another attempt to allay your confusion). I just don't think the people making the flawed models - and their alarmist historically false and wildly inaccurate predictions - should be the people making policy. I support a balanced approach, with analysis of costs and benefits, where we don't enter into agreements like the Paris Accords that literally don't help (and arguably make things worse by locking in increasing pollution from China and India).
By the way, enough with the victim card. Pretending that ever criticism of your poor arguments is an ad hominem attack might fly in your bubble but it's pretty transparent here.
Unless you tell us otherwise, it appears you would do absolutely nothing on any front until some point in the future where we have perfect information. That's indistinguishable from the people in our country advocating for increasing our carbon emissions and ignoring the threat of climate change.
Climate change, and the science it is based on, Paleoclimatology, are relatively new concepts in the course of human history. In my lifetime this science has gone from it being first invented or given a name, to seeing scientists promote their fears of its consequences. First, the fear of global cooling in the 1970s, followed by the fear of global warming in the 1980s, to changing the name of that fear to "climate change", followed by the theory that this change was caused by the activity of humans. Politicians and governments have responded to this, and worldwide media has also chosen to make it a major issue for mankind to be educated about.
You have made a number of very strong statements in this thread, declaring that you know the truth about climate change, whether it exists, and what causes it, and if someone were to disagree with you, then he would be ignorant, or just doesn't have the understanding that you possess. I am wondering therefore, are you a scientist, or a layman? If you are a scientist, then what are your credentials? Have you done scientific research or have you read any of the research papers that have been published? And if you are not a scientist and are a layman, what sources have you used to help you formulate your opinions?
The "fear" of global cooling in the 70's is just a mischaracterization of history. More people were worried about global warming than cooling. There were a few headlines about cooling and some identified it as a possible risk, but far more were concerned about warming. You, and other climate change deniers, bring this up to discredit science. The world over everyone understands that climate change is an issue and as far as I can tell US conservatives are the only group of people in the world who are challenging it. It's not a political topic anywhere else in the world. There are very few scientists challenging the broad consensus but quite a few Republican funded think tanks who overstate the contrarian case.
I criticized BG's view on modeling because he mischaracterized the state of climate models. He's done this time and time again with modeling, including COVID models because he doesn't know the first thing about models. I don't know what his academic or professional background is but it's obvious he doesn't have familiarity with how complex models and forecasting works. I happen to have professional experience working with modelers, in addition to my technical background, so perhaps I have a bit more perspective, but I'm not claiming to be an expert. Just someone who can spot the obvious politically motivated misinformation.
And contrary to your assertion, I do have a general understanding as to how complex models are and how forecasting works. To that point, I can point to a 40+ year history of the models and forecasts being wrong - always in the same alarmist way. That is politically motivated misinformation.
And yes, the vast majority of the COVID models sucked. That is a fact. It may have been unavoidable (given all the variables and unknowns), but the people promoting the models declared them science (and portrayed them as having a high degree of accuracy). Just like climate models.
bearister said:
IPCC report: Effects of climate change even more severe, sooner than we thought - Axios
A climate change crisis is when Joe Biden's diaper gets steaming hot all of a sudden#ShartWeek
— Michael Malice (@michaelmalice) November 1, 2021
bearister said:
"This morning, I sent Axios managing editor Justin Green a link about the changing climate's effect on the giant sequoias in my native California, and he replied:
"That cements my decision to take my kid to see them next year."
The big picture: Climate change is spurring people to rapidly accelerate their bucket lists see the millennia-old trees before they burn, the glaciers before they melt or the tropical reefs before they die.
For more than a century, Californians were taught that the great redwoods were fireproof. The first sequoia tree incinerated in recorded history was in 2015, AP reports.
Since then, thousands of the giant trees have burned in Sequoia National Park and the adjacent Sequoia National Forest.
To blame: climate change and long-term forest management policies.
America's most famous glaciers, memorably viewed from the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park, are projected to vanish by the end of this century.
Australia's Great Barrier Reef has lost half its corals in 25 years, a report said last year." Axios
Yeah, mass species extinctions are just part of the cyclical patterns of nature. Nothing to be concerned about. No need to do anything about it. It's God's will.dimitrig said:bearister said:
"This morning, I sent Axios managing editor Justin Green a link about the changing climate's effect on the giant sequoias in my native California, and he replied:
"That cements my decision to take my kid to see them next year."
The big picture: Climate change is spurring people to rapidly accelerate their bucket lists see the millennia-old trees before they burn, the glaciers before they melt or the tropical reefs before they die.
For more than a century, Californians were taught that the great redwoods were fireproof. The first sequoia tree incinerated in recorded history was in 2015, AP reports.
Since then, thousands of the giant trees have burned in Sequoia National Park and the adjacent Sequoia National Forest.
To blame: climate change and long-term forest management policies.
America's most famous glaciers, memorably viewed from the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park, are projected to vanish by the end of this century.
Australia's Great Barrier Reef has lost half its corals in 25 years, a report said last year." Axios
Nothing to see here! Move along!
Eastern Oregon Bear said:Yeah, mass species extinctions are just part of the cyclical patterns of nature. Nothing to be concerned about. No need to do anything about it. It's God's will.dimitrig said:bearister said:
"This morning, I sent Axios managing editor Justin Green a link about the changing climate's effect on the giant sequoias in my native California, and he replied:
"That cements my decision to take my kid to see them next year."
The big picture: Climate change is spurring people to rapidly accelerate their bucket lists see the millennia-old trees before they burn, the glaciers before they melt or the tropical reefs before they die.
For more than a century, Californians were taught that the great redwoods were fireproof. The first sequoia tree incinerated in recorded history was in 2015, AP reports.
Since then, thousands of the giant trees have burned in Sequoia National Park and the adjacent Sequoia National Forest.
To blame: climate change and long-term forest management policies.
America's most famous glaciers, memorably viewed from the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park, are projected to vanish by the end of this century.
Australia's Great Barrier Reef has lost half its corals in 25 years, a report said last year." Axios
Nothing to see here! Move along!
BearForce2 said:Climate Activists staged an insurrection at a government building yesterday, breaking into the Department of the Interior, trying to push past an officer to get inside
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 15, 2021
Explain to me why this Jan 6th-like behavior wasn’t covered AT ALL.
pic.twitter.com/69JxKD48Mo
Climate extremists at the Dept of Interior
Anarchistbear said:
Why is Biden there if Bezos represents US interests?
45: Biden went to Europe saying Global Warming is his biggest priority, and he then promptly fell asleep, for all of the world to see… pic.twitter.com/KPMbezSqVk
— Taylor Budowich (@TayFromCA) November 1, 2021
BearForce2 said:Anarchistbear said:
Why is Biden there if Bezos represents US interests?45: Biden went to Europe saying Global Warming is his biggest priority, and he then promptly fell asleep, for all of the world to see… pic.twitter.com/KPMbezSqVk
— Taylor Budowich (@TayFromCA) November 1, 2021
Biden is there because he told the progressives it was his biggest priority. He looks like a student dozing off in Dwinelle during an afternoon lecture.
I asked you a simple question. I had no intention to offend you, only to get some information. It was a two-part question. The question was whether you were a climate scientist, and if not, what were your sources for your opinions? You answered the first part honestly enough, but the second part you provided your source for only one of many points you had stated. Otherwise, you answered only with your political agenda.Unit2Sucks said:I have a degree from the best engineering school in the country but I'm not a climate scientist nor do I need to be to know that there is a scientific consensus.SFCityBear said:Unit2,Unit2Sucks said:So what do you propose? You obviously don't understand how modeling of complex systems works so what "balanced approach" do you favor? Would you do nothing at this point? Your statement about "locking in increasing pollution" is non-sensical - nothing prevents China/India from reducing their emissions more than they've agreed to in the Paris Accords. The rest of the world (including the US) intends to do so.BearGoggles said:We finally agree. You are confused. I would say more than a bit.Unit2Sucks said:The models have long predicted that greenhouse emissions would lead to climate change. Everyone (aside from a small bit vocal minority in this country consistently almost entirely of conservatives) understands that and has acknowledged for over a decade that action was needed. The models have improved with each generation.BearGoggles said:Unit2Sucks said:Classic post.BearGoggles said:That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.Unit2Sucks said:I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.BearGoggles said:
We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..
Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"
My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.
We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.
If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.
I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.
The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.
Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)
During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.
PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.
Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.
So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.
I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.
My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.
To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:
"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."
Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?
Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:
You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?
You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?
Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?
You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?
You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.
Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"
So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.
And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
If you somehow think there is an argument to be made that we shouldn't do anything because the models aren't "accurate" then I would ask why you would take medication when your doctor can't tell you precisely when you will die from complications resulting from high cholesterol. You don't need your doctor to accurately predict how and when you will suffer from high cholesterol for you to take action now. The fact that the medication works is similar to reducing greenhouse emissions. We know it will work.
As for all of your other stuff, it's sad to see you play the victim card. Woe is BG, a poor misunderstood conservative. Maybe you should go find a safe place away from message boards where people might interpret your words reasonably.
I am a bit confused though. Are you now saying you don't support any action to address climate change because of the models or because of China and India or because Republicans oppose action and you don't feel required to disagree with the politicians you support because I haven't called for Pelosi's resignation for eating ice cream. Or is it from having dinner outdoors?
And no - it I don't oppose "any action" to address climate change - once again you make an allegation based partly as an ad hominin attack and partly to distract.
To repeat (in another attempt to allay your confusion). I just don't think the people making the flawed models - and their alarmist historically false and wildly inaccurate predictions - should be the people making policy. I support a balanced approach, with analysis of costs and benefits, where we don't enter into agreements like the Paris Accords that literally don't help (and arguably make things worse by locking in increasing pollution from China and India).
By the way, enough with the victim card. Pretending that ever criticism of your poor arguments is an ad hominem attack might fly in your bubble but it's pretty transparent here.
Unless you tell us otherwise, it appears you would do absolutely nothing on any front until some point in the future where we have perfect information. That's indistinguishable from the people in our country advocating for increasing our carbon emissions and ignoring the threat of climate change.
Climate change, and the science it is based on, Paleoclimatology, are relatively new concepts in the course of human history. In my lifetime this science has gone from it being first invented or given a name, to seeing scientists promote their fears of its consequences. First, the fear of global cooling in the 1970s, followed by the fear of global warming in the 1980s, to changing the name of that fear to "climate change", followed by the theory that this change was caused by the activity of humans. Politicians and governments have responded to this, and worldwide media has also chosen to make it a major issue for mankind to be educated about.
You have made a number of very strong statements in this thread, declaring that you know the truth about climate change, whether it exists, and what causes it, and if someone were to disagree with you, then he would be ignorant, or just doesn't have the understanding that you possess. I am wondering therefore, are you a scientist, or a layman? If you are a scientist, then what are your credentials? Have you done scientific research or have you read any of the research papers that have been published? And if you are not a scientist and are a layman, what sources have you used to help you formulate your opinions?
The "fear" of global cooling in the 70's is just a mischaracterization of history. More people were worried about global warming than cooling. There were a few headlines about cooling and some identified it as a possible risk, but far more were concerned about warming. You, and other climate change deniers, bring this up to discredit science. The world over everyone understands that climate change is an issue and as far as I can tell US conservatives are the only group of people in the world who are challenging it. It's not a political topic anywhere else in the world. There are very few scientists challenging the broad consensus but quite a few Republican funded think tanks who overstate the contrarian case.
I criticized BG's view on modeling because he mischaracterized the state of climate models. He's done this time and time again with modeling, including COVID models because he doesn't know the first thing about models. I don't know what his academic or professional background is but it's obvious he doesn't have familiarity with how complex models and forecasting works. I happen to have professional experience working with modelers, in addition to my technical background, so perhaps I have a bit more perspective, but I'm not claiming to be an expert. Just someone who can spot the obvious politically motivated misinformation.
Dylan was cool to listen to, but this graph is junk science. There is no catastrophic rise in sea level. Read this:smh said:
> Walk on your tip toes, don't tie no bows
> Better say away from those that carry around a fire hose
> Keep a clean nose, watch the plainclothes
> You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows
