Whats important (1 Viewer)

[Pat Hartman]

I believe that the progress of science is hampered by climate alarmists suggesting that the science is settled.

This is my problem exactly. Once you insist on suppressing opposing views, you've lost the moral high ground as well as any credibility your argument might hold. If you review multiple opinions, you will find those that think that a small increase in CO2 (WE but NOT China and India, have gone a long way toward reducing our carbon emissions) is actually good for humans because it increases the ability to grow food crops. Stupid suggestions like spreading "stuff" in the upper atmosphere to block the sun would have huge negative consequences. We have actual, recent history to confirm this from several huge volcanic eruptions that have taken place in the past 200 years. Putting an umbrella over the earth to lower the temperature will kill millions because of the damage done to food crops. This is a non-starter. We don't need a flawed model when we have empirical evidence.

In my lifetime, the US has made huge strides in reducing pollution as well as carbon emissions. When was the last time the Monongahela caught fire When I drive in a car, the highways and city streets are no longer littered with trash. The sky over LA is blue (except when it is overcast) rather than green. My only trip to LA was in the 70's and the sky was a very sickly shade of green. In the same timeframe, I took a trip to Washington, DC. You could almost walk on the water in the Tidal Basin it was so polluted. If you walked the streets of Manhattan for an hour and then blew your nose, you would see soot on the tissue. You couldn't swim in the Hudson or any other major river in the country.
We could reduce emissions even further and faster if we could use nuclear power for energy. Solar and wind are not ready for prime time. They take too much space and have to be built too far away from population areas. Battery storage isn't viable so electricity needs to be generated as it is consumed and the sun doesn't shine at night or when it is overcast. Forcing people to use electric vehicles is dumb given the state of our electric grid. Did you notice the warnings that happen in the summer about NOT charging your car because it would cause brownouts????? I guess you can just stay home. Using electric buses in cities is a good idea. Cars, trucks, not so much. Tanks used for warfare - absolutely idiotic. So stupid there isn't even any discussion. I'm sure the Chinese are laughing hysterically at us for this idea along with the worries about flight suits for pregnant women.

eg I could not consider a President recommending injecting bleach to combat the spread of COVID.

Rather than believing other people's interpretations of what Trump says, perhaps, you might consider actually listening to the whole speech so the words have some context. Then you can apologize for even believing he recommended such a stupid thing. Most of what you think you know about Trump, you heard from people who hate him and distort every single thing he says. His rally speeches are boring and repetitive (he's not the great speaker he fancies himself to be) so I rarely watch them but his prepared speeches are always much more interesting.

My opinions - not that anyone should care -
1. Earth's climate is in constant flux.
2. Weather does not = climate
3. Pollution does not = climate
4. People create too much waste. Do you use single serve water bottles at home? Do you use plastic wrap or plastic/glass containers to store food? Do you use rolls of paper towels when you are cleaning or washable cloth rags? Do you use pre packaged coffee pods in your Keurig or do you use loose coffee in refillable containers? We can ALL reduce our carbon footprint - especially our plastic waste.
5. We should not build permanent structures on barrier islands. Leave them for temporary structures and recreation.
6. We should use the most efficient power generation method our technology will support - nuclear.
7. We should power fleet vehicles with natural gas rather than diesel or gasoline. So city trucks, UPS, etc. should use electric where feasible, otherwise natural gas. NYC has already figured out that electric doesn't work for snow plows - which are just garbage trucks with plows attached.
8. Taking away our gas stoves and gas water heaters is beyond the pale. light bulbs were bad enough.
9. Climate change does not cause forest fires. People should not be building in areas subject to forest fires or flooding for that matter. It is simply hubris to believe that we control nature.
10. Forest fires are caused by lightning or human carelessness. In California, if the tree-huggers would allow annual controlled burns near populated areas, the out of control dangerous fires would be significantly less frequent.
11. Climate change does not cause hurricanes or any other weather.
12. If the climate models cannot accurately predict the path of a tropical storm, how do you expect them to predict actual climate change? Let us not forget the UK model that sent the world into a tizzy and terrified half the population when it predicted a 10% mortality rate for COVID. Did I miss the retraction and apology when the actual rate turned out to be less than that of a bad seasonal flu? OOPS. Sorry you lost your job. Sorry, your business was destroyed and you were bankrupted. Sorry your kids lost two years of education and are now terrified of strangers.
13. Dense urban development causes local "weather". Heat and humidity for example. It would be a good thing is the roofs of buildings could be covered with grass and trees to cure some of the ill effects of all that asphalt.

 

[AccessBlaster]

It's less about science and more about the business of science.

 

[GaP42]

The arguments of all need to be skeptically assessed, not the few. Do you not understand the scientific method? Furthermore, there are also plenty of cranks in areas where they have expertise.

And many more cranks make claims in areas where they have no expertise. The methods of science do apply the rigour of peer review. Sometimes there are mis-steps, driven by say ego, or financial gain, or error ... but unless the claims are backed by evidence that can subsequently be reproduced or confirmed through further data gathering and analysis by others those claims are rejected.

At our level - not involved directly in research - the process of assessing truth is not as rigorous. We read, evaluate against our knowledge/ understanding and, hopefully rationally, determine whether to accept or reject that position.

Let us assume that humans cause CO2, it is increasing and causing climate change. This begs the question of what proportion of climate change is caused by the human element? The fact you were asking these questions suggest you are missing the point many skeptics are making, which is there is debate over whether the CO2 element is causing 5% of the change, 10%, 50% or 90%?

My understanding there is really not much that debate: How much of climate change is natural? How much is man-made? (phys.org)
Just promotion of the "debate" by those who are deny the causes.

It is very difficult to get a grant if it is to go against the prevailing climate change narrative.

That may depend upon the quality of the applications or the likelihood of the study "succeeding" - getting good robust data that can contribute to the body of knowledge. They are not easy to come by.
Further, if the grant is for a scientific investigation, then I would expect that it is to apply the methods of science to extend the body of knowledge. The outcome is not known. What you suggest is that the conclusion is already written. An hypothesis might be stated in the application, but the grant funds the process of gathering data, analysis and validation/rejection. Not the outcome. The involvement of the funder weakens the strength of a study in the view of peers.

It seems that you believe science should be based on a vote

Really Jon? Science is "follow the data" - but you are not a scientist (or do I presume too much?) - you process what is presented, distilled through media often, to evaluate and fit within your personal narrative (as we all do). Do you read every study?

Mike I really do not follow most of what you say. That first paragraph ... is it that although there are predictive models for climate change, that what will happen will happen and we should just throw our arms in air and give up?
Those models are very sophisticated and do encompass many factors - based upon the data gathered about the properties of the oceans, ice, atmosphere - that have been determined through the data gathered to have a role to play in climate. They do not cover everything, but they are tested by running them back in time to situations that arose in the past to see if the predictions match the situation in the past. They seem to come out quite well.

They do not predict the path of storms - that is weather - not climate. Weather forecasters use models to predict short term weather - not climate.

Manipulation of data? Are you going there? it can work both ways. Statistics, damn statistics.

China - OK so lets not do anything because of China. Throw the arms up in air (again) and do nothing.

The Trump thing was an example of how you would not follow the advice of a non-expert and unrelated to the climate change. I was shocked at the bumbling incompetent proposal put forward by the President in that interview. Brainstorming is not what you do as President when trying to provide assurance. It almost seemed he gave it off the top of his head - and those who gave him those suggestions are just as incompetent. Your interpretation was very generous.

BTW

For those that believe in evolution and that all living things just came to be out of randomness

Evolution is built upon random events that are selected by the environment - leading changes in the frequency of inheritable traits within the population. However, evolution does not itself deal directly with the how life arose, although I would place my bet where no imaginary being intervened.

 

[AccessBlaster]

“While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited,” they added.

Some examples:

• 1967 — Stanford University expert Paul Erlich predicted “time of famines” in 1975.
• 1971 — A top NASA expert predicted an “ice age” by 2021.
• 1988 — It was predicted that the Maldives would be under water by last year.
• 2008 — Gore said the Arctic would be free of ice by 2013.
• 2009 — Charles said there was just 96 months left to save the world.

“Our house is on fire — let’s act like it. We demand climate justice for everyone.”

 

[NauticalGent]

While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited,” they added.

But THIS time, it's different!

 

[moke123]

My dog is no scientist but she can confirm the rise in the tick population.

Cases Of Tick-borne Illnesses Are On The Rise. Experts Think Climate Change Is To Blame.

The potentially deadly diseases are spreading into new regions due in large part, say scientists, to global warming.

www.huffpost.com

 

[GaP42]

So all climate predictions are false?
Tuvalu: They are under threat now - experiencing impacts of rising sea levels. Sea level rise in Tuvalu, South Pacific - OpenLearn - Open University
Maldives: However the Maldives are being impacted by rising sea levels. Preparing for Rising Seas in the Maldives (nasa.gov)

Greenland ice cap melting
Antarctic melt - sea ice extent
Arctic sea ice
Ocean temps

Instead of (cherry-)picking look at the bigger picture. Is change happening? Are these changes normal? What is driving these changes? Is it pure imagination or is there something in it? Who / what will you refer to to give you the best guide?
Are you sure that there is nothing to worry about? Carry on as normal - block any action, just don't expect future generations to thank you.

 

[Jon]

With respect @GaP42, and without appearing to sound rude, the more you talk about this topic, the less it appears that you know about it. Let me explain as I address your points.

The methods of science do apply the rigour of peer review.

Are you not aware of how politicised the left have made climate change? It strips it of any rigour whatsoever. Instead of just reporting facts, instead there is the vilification of those who disagree with the narrative. That is not healthy for science at all. If you adopt a cancel culture on those scientists who disagree, peer review becomes meaningless because you just end up getting a confirmation bias from those who agree with you.

We read, evaluate against our knowledge/ understanding and, hopefully rationally, determine whether to accept or reject that position.

You cannot be rational if you do not understand the arguments of both sides. It appears that you just assume that the skeptics are wrong. Perhaps you believe everything that you are told, but I suggest you critically examine what each side is saying. Then the situation is not so clear. But when most of your peers will believe what you currently believe, you are not incentivised to do so, because "group think" takes over. It must be true because they say it is true.

My understanding there is really not much that debate

There is not much debate when you live in an echo chamber. And this is part of the problem. "The science is settled!" I mentioned this earlier. Do you actually know what the arguments are for the skeptics? Have you ever looked at them?

What you suggest is that the conclusion is already written.

You keep putting words into my mouth. I have made no such claim. What I am suggesting is that Obama, for example, gave 100's of millions or was it billions of dollars in grants to tackle climate change. These are not grants for those who disagree with the climate change narrative. You are being naive if you think it is just about following the data. The money comes from political decisions.

Do you read every study?

Does anyone read every study? Nope. Not even climate scientists.

The involvement of the funder weakens the strength of a study in the view of peers.

I agree, because the funder wants to have a particular outcome that supports their belief. Likewise, the funder of grants from Obama to investigate how to tackle human caused climate change weakens the study from the perspective of those on the Right. The implicit assumption is that human caused climate change is the main element in recent climate change (as opposed to natural causes) and warrants that level of funding.

May I respectfully suggest you watch something from the opposing side? It seems like you only listen to what you want to hear, rather than confronting some difficult arguments from what you consider to be (holocaust) deniers. I too assumed the climate change narrative was true until I started to hear some of the opposing arguments. My assumption was that if most of them are saying it is true, it probably is. But as you grow older, you start to realise that a lot of what you are told is complete BS because people are influenced by perverse incentives.

Look at Harry and Megan, flying around in private jets lecturing others on climate change. Then Harry flies by private jet just to get to a polo game. The hypocrasy is breathtaking.

 

[NauticalGent]

May I respectfully suggest you watch something from the opposing side? It seems like you only listen to what you want to hear, rather than confronting some difficult arguments from what you consider to be (holocaust) deniers.

Words BOTH sides should heed...

And although I TRY to be neutral, I fail as much as anyone - what can I say, I'm human.

 

[GaP42]

With respect Jon I think that much of what you are saying reflects your own bias

Are you not aware of how politicised the left have made climate change?

The left has made it politicised, but the right has not? Is that a view from your side of the fence? Tango for two

"group think" takes over. It must be true because they say it is true.

And that does not occur in your circles?

"group think" takes over. It must be true because they say it is true.

Which applies only on one side? You do like to make assumptions. when I read the arguments on both sides I do not get to the same conclusions as you. Surprised? I don't think you are, or is everyone supposed to think like you?

The grants made were to "tackle climate change" is different to the question of is climate change occurring, what is causing climate change. Perhaps the science was settled and money directed to the latter was not likely answer the questions that needed to be answered.

However I will continue to follow the debate outside this forum and try to maintain balance, looking at the evidence.

 

[Jon]

Words BOTH sides should heed...

And although I TRY to be neutral, I fail as much as anyone - what can I say, I'm human.

I agree. There is nothing wrong with having a perspective, but at least try to understand what the minority view is saying. To me, it appears that climate science is not a hard science like physics, because much of the work is unfalsifiable. You only find out if it is true or not later down the road. And even then how can you tell whether the predictions, accurate or otherwise, are human caused verses natural?

To me, it is far healthier for scientists to stop attacking those with opposing views with slurs (i.e. deniers) and instead have open debate. It has become a moral crusade rather than vigorous science.

 

[Jon]

With respect Jon I think that much of what you are saying reflects your own bias

What do you think my bias is?

The left has made it politicised, but the right has not? Is that a view from your side of the fence? Tango for two

The left wants to cancel those who want to debate. That is not science. The right are not making it a moral crusade that perverts outcomes. That is not politicising. Instead, it is letting science do its thing without the insertion of politics.

And that does not occur in your circles?

You missed the point. I was suggesting you avoid group think by looking at both sides of the argument.

However I will continue to follow the debate outside this forum and try to maintain balance, looking at the evidence

I thought you said their wasn't much debate: "My understanding there is really not much that debate"

Can you state any arguments that the "deniers" are making that you disagree with, and why? Without Googling?

 

[Jon]

One of the things that led to my increasing skepticism about the strength of the arguments that climate change is mostly human caused is the fabrication of evidence and continually stating that "97% of scientists agree that climate change is mostly caused by humans", i.e. there is a consensus. This has been widely stated, including by Obama. Yet it is false. Anyone who looks into where this figure came from and how it is composed will rapidly find that it is bogus. The report that led to this figure even includes names that say they support this view, yet some of these same people say they don't.

Sadly, when you cry wolf enough times, your faith in the rest of what they are saying gets reduced. You just cannot trust them!

I remember this video by Ted Cruz. Interesting to watch.

 

[GaP42]

As you invited me to look at the video I did: the key claim being put by Cruz was that the satellite data showed that there has been a pause in global temperatures over 18 years, and that suggests that the position that the great majority of climate scientists, that climate change was occurring, was bunk.

Well if you are considering measuring changes in climate and tempaerature in particular, there are a range of measurements/ techniques that can be employed: each of which may have strengths and weaknesses. From what I understand the satellite-based temperature measurements give readings in the atmosphere at some considerable height above the surface. These measurements are not considered as accurate and reliable as surface temperature records - where we live, which do not show this effect. A view of the data over an extended period of time does not show a pause.

Who is crying wolf? Who is cherry-picking?

 

[Pat Hartman]

My understanding there is really not much that debate:

You are forgetting or perhaps you just don't know how much alternate information is suppressed by Google, et al. Some of it is intentionally suppressed by the way they rate sources. The rest is suppressed by your own confirmation bias. The articles you choose to click on directly affect the articles you are fed. You can prove this to yourself by a silly little test. Every time you see an article about the British royal family, click on it. Within a few days, your feed will be filled with "royals" articles suppressing actual news and other articles.

That may depend upon the quality of the applications or the likelihood of the study "succeeding" - getting good robust data that can contribute to the body of knowledge. They are not easy to come by.

The funders know the "answer" they want. They are not always interested in actual investigative work. They want to prove their point so they choose studies they think will do that. You can frequently tell by the title of the study what the "answer" will be.

Something to think about very seriously -- When the study calls the opposition research "deniers", THEY are the biased side. I've never seen a study that concludes that climate change is largely caused naturally that calls the opposition "deniers".

 

[GaP42]

Hi Pat - no thanks - can't stand the idea of un-elected swill having dominion over their subjects however I do note the number of gaming/ gambling ads / promos that come my way - however I do not recall ever having a gambling app or subscribing to those. There are those that have no scruples that get hold of our email address / use cookies to keep track of where we are and what we do. Do you never use a search engine to find stuff? Then there are those social media apps / echo chambers. Just have to find my own way.

Can't help you on your other point: if that is how you think it works that is all that matters for you.

Deniers / alarmists - let's just label them as not with us. It is just as easy to claim the opposite. Are they "skeptics"? Maybe they give real skeptics bad name?

 

[GaP42]

And just a moment later, reading from a blog i follow there was this:

The conversation, in my opinion, nicely demonstrates a couple of general critical thinking principles. The first is that basically well-meaning people (meaning they are not a paid shill) can look at essentially the same collection of facts and come to a different opinion. This relates partly to another post I wrote recently, about how we can subjectively define “true” in order to support pre-existing narratives.

The other principle on clear display in the comments is our old friend confirmation bias (this cuts in all directions, although not necessarily symmetrically). We tend to seek out, accept, and remember bits of information that seem to support what we already believe or want to believe, while finding reasons to dismiss or ignore information that contradicts our narrative. The result is a powerful illusion of knowledge, that what we feel in our guts (or aligns with our ideology) is objectively and obviously true. Therefore, those who disagree with us must be suffering some catastrophic personal failing.

There are also external factors at play, because we are not living in a neutral or disinterested information ecosystem. Not only are we biased in how we gather facts, information is being curated for us with the specific purpose of influencing what we believe to be true. This is also a self-reinforcing phenomenon, because acceptance of curated information leads us to increasingly curated and extreme sources of information, sometimes leading to the infamous “information bubble”.

Compensating for this situation is complicated, but there are some easy steps you can take. Many commenters either asked a question or stated as fact something that could easily be checked with basic Google skills. In some cases they appeared to change their mind in light of new information with proper citations. But why didn’t they find that information for themselves, before providing a contradictory opinion in a public forum? We all should learn how to leverage the same technology which now floods us with misinformation. In many cases, just a few minutes of thoughtful searching led to authoritative sources of factual information. Also, when trying to put all this information together, you can seek out a range of opinions. I especially value seemingly thoughtful opinions that disagree with my current position. Why do they disagree? Do they know something I don’t, or are we proceeding from different value judgements, etc.?

 

[Jon]

As you invited me to look at the video I did: the key claim being put by Cruz was that the satellite data showed that there has been a pause in global temperatures over 18 years, and that suggests that the position that the great majority of climate scientists, that climate change was occurring, was bunk.

Well if you are considering measuring changes in climate and tempaerature in particular, there are a range of measurements/ techniques that can be employed: each of which may have strengths and weaknesses. From what I understand the satellite-based temperature measurements give readings in the atmosphere at some considerable height above the surface. These measurements are not considered as accurate and reliable as surface temperature records - where we live, which do not show this effect. A view of the data over an extended period of time does not show a pause.

Who is crying wolf? Who is cherry-picking?

I took a different perspective. The period in question did not show the changes that were previously predicted. The climate scientists called it a pause. But the guy refused to admit that. And then he just kept repeating the debunked "97% of climate scientists agree" lies. Now the incompetence of this climate advocate does not suggest climate change is not caused mostly by humans. What it does do is discredit him, and therefore you cannot trust anything he says on this topic. And sadly, there are a lot of them.

I'm not sure where crying wolf or cherry-picking is coming from. I've just showed an example of climate activists repeating the 97% myth.

Furthermore, the climate guy was saying the science is settled. See my multiple previous comments about this. When you have other scientists who disagree, the science is not settled.

But it is good that you looked at the video. I would encourage keeping a more open mind, instead of trying to find what is wrong with something that goes against a lodged belief. I know it is hard to do, but I think it improves rationality. I note that the blog you are referring to is partially about skepticism, and personally I find it helps to keep skepticism rather than say the science is settled.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Deniers / alarmists - let's just label them as not with us. It is just as easy to claim the opposite. Are they "skeptics"? Maybe they give real skeptics bad name?

The point which I think you missed is "when the opposition calls YOU names, THEY are the ones who are biased" Their argument can't stand on the "science" so they have to call you names if you don't believe it.

People pushing the "humans are the proximate cause of climate change and therefore the US MUST give up fossil fuels to atone" are referred to as alarmists but not by the people writing the papers. It is generally the press that does that - but only because of their insistence that the US must suffer so that China can burn as much "dirty" coal as they want.

 

[Pat Hartman]

and that suggests that the position that the great majority of climate scientists

And you bought the 97% lie; hook, line, and sinker Maybe that is a good place to start. WHY do the alarmists need to mis state the facts? Is their "science" not sound? I am not the one writing scientific papers, so I am allowed to call the people I think are lying to you "alarmists".