SFCityBear said:
Unit2Sucks said:
SFCityBear said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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/
Classic post.
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.
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.
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?
We finally agree. You are confused. I would say more than a bit.
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).
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.
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.
Unit2,
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?
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.
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.
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.
You said you "know that there is a consensus" between scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Scientists do research, publish a paper. Other scientists read the paper. Some are skeptical. They ask for the scientist's data and his methods of analyzing the data. Then they try and duplicate his experiments. If his idea survives the challenge, it becomes a valid theory. It can always be challenged again.
There have been surveys of scientific papers where the surveyors subjectively felt the paper was favorable to AGW, but there is no survey that I know of where all climate scientists have been asked their opinion of AGW. In 2013 there was a survey of members of the American Meteorological Society where 52% did have a favorable opinion of AGW but professional forecasters were only 38% in favor. So what is your source for the consensus on AGW?
You disputed my statement about there being fear in the early 1970s of global cooling and the world going into another ice age, trivializing it. Maybe this article will give you more information: https://realclimatescience.com/1970s-global-cooling-scare/. You could also read about it in Dixy Lee Ray's book, "Environmental Overkill, where she writes about the uncertainty of the science at the time, with some scientists in the AGW camp and some in the AGC camp. Ms. Ray was an eminent marine biologist and professor at the University of Washington, and a former Governor of Washington, and also former Head of the US Atomic Energy Commission.
For this cooling scare, you cited a Wikipedia article as your source. Heck, you or I could write an article for Wikipedia. William Connolley, a software engineer, a climate modeler, and a global warming activist, was hired by Wikipedia in 2003 as a website administrator to revise climate change articles. He revised 5,428 articles, including the original Wiki article on global cooling. He also managed to get a number of anti-AGW scare authors banned from Wikipedia. Wiki has some accurate articles, but I would not trust it for everything. Here is more on the AGC scare, including info on Connolley: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/05/global-cooling-will-kill-us-all/
You then stated that "as far as you could tell, the only group challenging AGW is US Conservatives." And your source is?
You stated that very few scientists challenge AGW. And your source is?
Are you aware of climate scientist Michael Mann, whose research in MBH1998 and MBH1999 resulted in the famous "Hockey Stick Graph" popularized worldwide in Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth"? The Hockey Stick Graph showed that earth temperatures going back to about 1000 AD were relatively low, flat until the 1800s when they began to rise sharply. Mann's research was the main research upon which global warming was based at the time. It was found to be a fraud, exposed by Steve McIntyre, a retired statistician from the Canadian mining industry. Mann had used a statistical trick to create the low flat temperatures, completely eliminating the Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warming Period, where temperatures were similar to the temperatures in 1998 and 1999 when Mann refused FOIA requests for his data and his source codes, so McIntyre substituted white noise for data, and produced the same flat graph that Mann had gotten. It was also found that Mann used tree ring data from one area of North America, but used temperature data from another area far away from the trees. Read "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by A. W. Montford for the full story. For his research, Mann has been rewarded the prestigious Department Chair at Penn State. Mark Steyn wrote a book about Mann, "A Disgrace to the Profession" in which he compiled the opinions of about 165 climate scientists, all Mann critics. For more deniers, you can read "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon, which profiles 20 "Deniers", all climate scientists with impressive CVs. There are more deniers than you know.
There are reasons you don't hear a lot from these deniers. The governments control the grants and also control the media, and the media seldom allows a denier a platform or interviews them. A climate scientist can not get a research grant from the federal government unless it is to add to the AGW narrative. If his or her research is counter to that, their only source today is private funding, and there is far more money available from governments than from private sources. If you are a climate scientist, it is a narrow specialized field. You need to eat and make a living, and so you need to be awarded grants to pay for your work. You must be in favor of AGW, or you don't survive, and probably need to look for work in another field.
You also stated that you were critical of BG's view on modeling, (but you were mostly critical of him). You accuse him of obvious political motivation, saying you know how to spot that. I don't doubt that you know what politically motivated misinformation is, because that is pretty much all your reply to me was, politically motivated misinformation. I thought your source was probably a political Party website. It sure was not science in any case.
PS: You may be misinformed on Republicans. The last poll I saw had 50% of them supporting AGW. And this week, the Fox News Weather Channel just rolled over, and will now be promoting AGW.
US Republicans are the last group of people on earth for whom climate change is a political issue rather than accepted science. There are 195 counties in the UNFCC, each of which ratified the Paris Agreement. Of course, under Trump the US famously withdrew but that is being rectified. If you don't believe there is consensus amongst scientists, surely you must agree there is consensus among global governments. There is no other country on earth where this debate is happening in any earnest - just the US. If you want to claim that this is a lively debate in Putin's Russia, go ahead. I've yet to hear an explanation for what would motivate every single country on earth to acknowledge climate change that is remotely plausible.
If you think wikipedia is untrustworthy, you should be embarrassed of the sources you cited. "realclimatescience" is a
quack website run by a "hobbyist" operating under a pseudonym. Whereas before you argued about the "fear of global cooling" from the 70's you now acknowledge that there was no consensus there. You pointed to a known climate denier who created a page with a few scans of articles from newspapers. That is hardly evidence of any scientific force. If you want different sources, I can provide different sources. There are
numerous articles detailing how climate deniers are trying to perpetuate a scam that global cooling was a prominent theory. "A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling." This is how science works - people have different ideas and they publish their research. Over time often a consensus develops, as it has for climate change.
I'm critical of BG's view on modeling because none of his statements indicate that he has any understanding whatsoever of how modeling works. He believes that changes made in response to models which change the outcome prove that the models were wrong. If I said I created a complex computer model to evaluate what would happen if someone shot you in the head and then you saw the results and said "hmm, I think I will avoid getting shot in the head", BG would show up and claim the model was a failure. If you agree with BG, then you don't understand how models work.
I'm grateful to hear that Republicans are very slowly beginning to understand that they've been lied to for decades and that AGW is a big problem. That's very important progress and it's nice to see them catching up with the rest of the civilized world.
As for your meteorologist survey from 2013, I've read the study (
source) and it says some pretty interesting things. First - the survey showed 87% acknowledged that global warming was occurring, and that in addition to the 52% that acknowledged AGW, 10% believed GW was from a mix of human and natural causes and that 20% believed there was insufficient evidence. The group that believed there was insufficient evidence to say was primarily composed of nonpublishers (eg people less likely to be experts). In addition to pointing out that expertise made someone more likely to acknowledge AGW, the study listed a number of limitations and stated that it largely confirms the consensus of AGW. I'm happy to provide more studies showing the consensus, but since you cited this study, we can end it here.
Quote:
Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010).
...
Confirmation of our four hypotheses shows that meteorologists' views about global warming observed in the last 150 years are associated with, and may be causally influenced by, a range of personal and social factors. In other words, the notion that expertise is the single dominant factor shaping meteorologists' views of global warming appears to be simplistic to the point of being incorrect.
...
As we mentioned above, asking about a 150-yr time frame rather than a 50-yr time frame may also have changed the strength of the relationships between global warming views and other variables. For example, expertise may have been a stronger predictor of views on human causation if we had asked about a shorter time frame. Because the evidence for human causation is much stronger for the last 50 years (Pachauri and Reisinger 2007), we would expect experts, who are presumably familiar with this evidence, to be substantially more likely to view global warming in this period as human caused than nonexperts who were not familiar with the evidence.
Let's just be honest. AGW isn't controversial. The world has moved on to solving it and if we're lucky we will actually have some success. Unfortunately there are still far too many corporate and other interests standing in the way which makes the challenge even more difficult.
