Climate Change!

[BRUTE]

Deniers seem to consider themselves independent and free thinking, yet their following an old tradition which invariably leads to the dustbin of history.

that's exactly the attitude that turns brute away from CC alarmists.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy- ... 1480723518

[theanimal]

Interesting link.


Here's something also along those lines: Aliens Cause Global Warming

[steveo73]

Deniers seem to consider themselves independent and free thinking, yet their following an old tradition which invariably leads to the dustbin of history.

that's exactly the attitude that turns brute away from CC alarmists.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy- ... 1480723518

I agree with you Brute. The arguments for GW appear to be based upon non-scientific (at least in my opinion) reasoning. It's not a debate about who is right. It should be science based. Empirical evidence, statistical proof, etc.

You look at this thread. It's Doomday hysteria with no facts. I'm thinking of changing my opinion on this topic but I want to see proof that my initial assessment which was probably correct at the time needs to be amended. That information doesn't appear to be available.

It's interesting that there are a lot of skeptics out there:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

[ducknalddon]

I agree with you Brute. The arguments for GW appear to be based upon non-scientific (at least in my opinion) reasoning. It's not a debate about who is right. It should be science based. Empirical evidence, statistical proof, etc.

You look at this thread. It's Doomday hysteria with no facts. I'm thinking of changing my opinion on this topic but I want to see proof that my initial assessment which was probably correct at the time needs to be amended. That information doesn't appear to be available.

It's interesting that there are a lot of skeptics out there:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

Proof only exists in mathematics, there is no proof in science. There is a hypothesis first postulated over 100 years ago and data over that period that supports the hypothesis.

There is no shortage of data.

[black_son_of_gray]

The arguments for GW appear to be based upon non-scientific (at least in my opinion) reasoning.

Back to the OP topic: I suppose the narrative will change if or when the things listed become too expensive with fossil fuels anyway (at least, to the average middle-class person). That could happen from an EROEI perspective, or it could happen from an economic perspective (e.g. the average person is just too poor to fly frequently). Both of those are linked anyway.

With isolationism rising in politics and many countries starting to think less highly of globalization, I wonder if that will grow into "regionalism" or "localism" ... obviously that could solve some problems but create many more.

[steveo73]

I agree with you Brute. The arguments for GW appear to be based upon non-scientific (at least in my opinion) reasoning. It's not a debate about who is right. It should be science based. Empirical evidence, statistical proof, etc.

You look at this thread. It's Doomday hysteria with no facts. I'm thinking of changing my opinion on this topic but I want to see proof that my initial assessment which was probably correct at the time needs to be amended. That information doesn't appear to be available.

It's interesting that there are a lot of skeptics out there:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

Proof only exists in mathematics, there is no proof in science. There is a hypothesis first postulated over 100 years ago and data over that period that supports the hypothesis.

There is no shortage of data.

The scientific method though exists and I consider that proof or at least poof enough for me. So you have a theory and it gets backed up by data.

I think that there is a shortage of data in this case.

[steveo73]

The arguments for GW appear to be based upon non-scientific (at least in my opinion) reasoning.

Back to the OP topic: I suppose the narrative will change if or when the things listed become too expensive with fossil fuels anyway (at least, to the average middle-class person). That could happen from an EROEI perspective, or it could happen from an economic perspective (e.g. the average person is just too poor to fly frequently). Both of those are linked anyway.

With isolationism rising in politics and many countries starting to think less highly of globalization, I wonder if that will grow into "regionalism" or "localism" ... obviously that could solve some problems but create many more.

I studied this at university and this was my conclusion as well. The tipping point is more likely to be cost.

[stand@desk]

Here's a whole bunch of non-data minutae to throw into the discussion..

Another point to consider, that the "elites" will start taking climate change seriously when they no longer feel entitled to fly long distances (and leave a big carbon footprint) to meet to conference on climate change because doing so would be worse off for the climate and they would feel too guilty to do so. (And they actually go on record saying so in the press.)

Having said that, I wonder if the greatest proponenents for fighting climate change are also the greatest carbon emitters. (ie. a certain Revenant actor)

also,

"Most mistakes get worse when you try to correct them." Nassim Taleb aphorism

What action done thus far has made a measurable difference in the climate change fight? (We have done good work to mitigate acid rain and repair the ozone but that would be for a different discussion I'd submit) Or has all action been heavily overwhelmed by the status quo? Thus the action will always have the lower hand and never the upper..

[BRUTE]

I think that there is a shortage of data in this case.

for brute, it's not even the data. there probably is a lot of data supporting this, at least to a degree.

but to make the case for brute to become invested in climate change alarmism, the following needs to happen:

1)enough convincing, scientific data from unbiased studies is found (presumably this exists)
2)it must be packaged in a way that both conveys the information and seems reasonably trustworthy/verifiable (fail)
3)common questions/objections must be dealt with in informative, reasonable ways, no attacking the messenger (HUGE fail)
4)alternatives must be presented that seem to address the problems from 1) (fail)
5)the alternatives must not put unreasonable pain/cost on brute, and they must be clearly beneficial (HUGE fail)
6)it must be demonstrated how the alternative is better than what brute is already doing (fail)
7)the moral high ground cannot be claimed if asshole tactics are used at the same time to shame/defame/sink objective criticism "for the greater good" (HUGE fail)

in short, brute believes Climate Alarmism is probably scientifically true. but many/most of the proponents are being such assholes, so unreasonable, so unobjective, and their solutions so inane, that brute has no dog in this fight. fuck this planet, if those are the humans being saved, good riddance.

brute is a strong believer that it's impossible to achieve moral goals with immoral methods. this is exactly what climate alarmists are trying. this makes brute super suspicious of them and destroys any trust in their science.

[George the original one]

I will try and find some clear cut rational arguments but what if we have to wait and see what happens ? Is this a serious option at this point ?

When the train is coming, one should step off the tracks. CC is the train. The tracks are any low-elevation coastal residence. It is cheaper to move than to mitigate flooding.

Or do you not believe sea levels are rising?

[steveo73]

I think that there is a shortage of data in this case.

for brute, it's not even the data. there probably is a lot of data supporting this, at least to a degree.

but to make the case for brute to become invested in climate change alarmism, the following needs to happen:

1)enough convincing, scientific data from unbiased studies is found (presumably this exists)
2)it must be packaged in a way that both conveys the information and seems reasonably trustworthy/verifiable (fail)
3)common questions/objections must be dealt with in informative, reasonable ways, no attacking the messenger (HUGE fail)
4)alternatives must be presented that seem to address the problems from 1) (fail)
5)the alternatives must not put unreasonable pain/cost on brute, and they must be clearly beneficial (HUGE fail)
6)it must be demonstrated how the alternative is better than what brute is already doing (fail)
7)the moral high ground cannot be claimed if asshole tactics are used at the same time to shame/defame/sink objective criticism "for the greater good" (HUGE fail)

in short, brute believes Climate Alarmism is probably scientifically true. but many/most of the proponents are being such assholes, so unreasonable, so unobjective, and their solutions so inane, that brute has no dog in this fight. fuck this planet, if those are the humans being saved, good riddance.

brute is a strong believer that it's impossible to achieve moral goals with immoral methods. this is exactly what climate alarmists are trying. this makes brute super suspicious of them and destroys any trust in their science.

I hear what you are stating and I feel similar but I have tried to find for instance point 1 and it's really hard. I can't tell that GW alarmist theories are correct or incorrect. I don't have the facts available to me. My criticisms of this theory years ago remain the same. The science is not clear cut. If it is show me the updated factual information.

[steveo73]

I will try and find some clear cut rational arguments but what if we have to wait and see what happens ? Is this a serious option at this point ?

When the train is coming, one should step off the tracks. CC is the train. The tracks are any low-elevation coastal residence. It is cheaper to move than to mitigate flooding.

Or do you not believe sea levels are rising?

Is it and how big is the effect. I live in Australia. The water levels appear to be exactly the same. It's definitely not at the point to be alarmed if you can't see it with your own eyes.

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

This is the best information I can get but digging into the facts on-line appears really difficult.

I just watched this and it really seems clear still that there are more holes in the AGW theory than in a block of swiss cheese. It might be occurring but it's not 100% verifiable at this point or even close to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

[theanimal]

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

This is the best information I can get but digging into the facts on-line appears really difficult.

I just watched this and it really seems clear still that there are more holes in the AGW theory than in a block of swiss cheese. It might be occurring but it's not 100% verifiable at this point or even close to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

Nothing like watching a 6.5 yr old video featuring somebody paid by big oil to stay informed and up to date! Facts!

[steveo73]

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

This is the best information I can get but digging into the facts on-line appears really difficult.

I just watched this and it really seems clear still that there are more holes in the AGW theory than in a block of swiss cheese. It might be occurring but it's not 100% verifiable at this point or even close to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

Nothing like watching a 6.5 yr old video featuring somebody paid by big oil to stay informed and up to date! Facts!

It was 2 people there and I'd be surprised if that long a time period makes a difference when it comes to climate change. Do you know that they are paid via big oil ? Do you have proof. I posted another video that was skeptical as well. Are they also paid by big oil ?

The issue to me is that the flaws within the theory should be answered. I think that is fair enough. The common approach appears to be not to answer the flaws in the theory.

[theanimal]

It was 2 people there and I'd be surprised if that long a time period makes a difference when it comes to climate change. Do you know that they are paid via big oil ? Do you have proof. I posted another video that was skeptical as well. Are they also paid by big oil ?

The issue to me is that the flaws within the theory should be answered. I think that is fair enough. The common approach appears to be not to answer the flaws in the theory.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-funding

This is a broken record. I'm out.

[BRUTE]

This is a broken record. I'm out.

the exact same thing said by the other side.

[ducknalddon]

The scientific method though exists and I consider that proof or at least poof enough for me. So you have a theory and it gets backed up by data.
[/quote/

Unfortunately we do not have multiple planets to experiment with and check the results. Modelling and extrapolation is the best we can do. However the science has been pretty accurate so far.

I think that there is a shortage of data in this case.

There is plenty of data to show temperatures have been increasing, in England we have been keeping records for several hundred years. We have been seeing sea ice melt, glacier melt and permafrost melt. There is plenty of data if you want to find it.

[ducknalddon]

for brute, it's not even the data. there probably is a lot of data supporting this, at least to a degree.

but to make the case for brute to become invested in climate change alarmism, the following needs to happen:

1)enough convincing, scientific data from unbiased studies is found (presumably this exists)
2)it must be packaged in a way that both conveys the information and seems reasonably trustworthy/verifiable (fail)
3)common questions/objections must be dealt with in informative, reasonable ways, no attacking the messenger (HUGE fail)
4)alternatives must be presented that seem to address the problems from 1) (fail)
5)the alternatives must not put unreasonable pain/cost on brute, and they must be clearly beneficial (HUGE fail)
6)it must be demonstrated how the alternative is better than what brute is already doing (fail)
7)the moral high ground cannot be claimed if asshole tactics are used at the same time to shame/defame/sink objective criticism "for the greater good" (HUGE fail)

in short, brute believes Climate Alarmism is probably scientifically true. but many/most of the proponents are being such assholes, so unreasonable, so unobjective, and their solutions so inane, that brute has no dog in this fight. fuck this planet, if those are the humans being saved, good riddance.

brute is a strong believer that it's impossible to achieve moral goals with immoral methods. this is exactly what climate alarmists are trying. this makes brute super suspicious of them and destroys any trust in their science.

Most of the "asshole" tactics have come from the energy industries, people like the Koch brothers. They have deliberately tried to descredit the science, told us warming isn't happening then when it's obvious it is they have told us it isn't man made, no doubt they will ackowledge it is man made but tell us we can't fix it next.

brute is a strong believer that it's impossible to achieve moral goals with immoral methods. this is exactly what climate alarmists are trying. this makes brute super suspicious of them and destroys any trust in their science.

So you disagree with the science because it doesn't tally with your political views?

[steveo73]

The scientific method though exists and I consider that proof or at least poof enough for me. So you have a theory and it gets backed up by data.
[/quote/

Unfortunately we do not have multiple planets to experiment with and check the results. Modelling and extrapolation is the best we can do. However the science has been pretty accurate so far.

I think that there is a shortage of data in this case.

There is plenty of data to show temperatures have been increasing, in England we have been keeping records for several hundred years. We have been seeing sea ice melt, glacier melt and permafrost melt. There is plenty of data if you want to find it.

This isn't simple though. It'd be better to recognise the complexity and then start stating couching discussions based on the complexity of the issue.

It's not like this -> 100 mcg increase in C02 leads to 1 degree celsius increases in temperature.

The models work like this:-

100 mcg increase in C02 leads to a trivial increase in temperature but feedback effects multiply this effect. We don't understand these feedback effects well. Maybe the feedback effects make the resultant temperature increase less.

To confound the issue the data isn't clean. It simply isn't. The earth has been hotter and cooler with varying amounts of C02 in the atmosphere.

Taking the data over the last 200 years where it is available and it's not clear cut even then and drawing alarmist predictions is doing a disservice to people that believe in the theory. They are overselling it.

A classic example is the 97% of scientists believe in the theory. This study was basically fraudulent and completely unscientific but there are mountains of laypeople out there utilising this figure.

I'm not even doubting the issue outright. I'm stating what is required is for much less alarmist discussions and for calm rational discussions to take place. People go berserk when this is stated though.

I like this blog because she is a skeptic but in a scientific fashion:- https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/03/trut ... more-22564

What are the facts in the climate science debate?

Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years
Carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectra
Humans have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
That is pretty much it, in terms of verifiable, generally agreed upon scientific facts surrounding the major elements of climate change debate.

Human caused global warming is a theory. The assertion that human caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis. The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this.

[BRUTE]

So you disagree with the science because it doesn't tally with your political views?

no. climate alarmists are shit at explaining their theory on fact basis alone, and being assholes doesn't help.