Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jan 7, 2022.

  1. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    8,884
    Likes Received:
    6,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know why the only answers are extreme one way or another. There are plenty of in betweens.

    The climate is changing.
    Climate has changed since the Earth was created.
    There is no stopping a natural process, and if it is attempted, think 'butterfly effect'.
    Reducing the overall impact of mankind can be nothing but beneficial to the planet.
    Taxing people isn't going to stop climate change.
    Each individual is responsible for their own actions. Trying to mandate actions has never been proven successful.

    Those that have screamed to loudest with alarmist propaganda, are quite often those who violate their own guidelines.

    Those that believe that we are at a cusp, give up your computers, your keyboards, your cell phones, your TV. Give up your car, fossil fuel or electric. Give up all products packaged in plastic, remove your driveway, take down your vinyl siding. Don't fly on a plane, or ride a train. Learn how to ride a horse.
     
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except that we're only causing about half of it, with the result that there's no need for action.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2022
  3. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,734
    Likes Received:
    8,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do we know that for fact?

    I don't think we know, and I think trying to do something about, given that it might help, is worth while.
     
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ". . . . it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling).

    You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776. . . . "

    My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion
     
  5. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,734
    Likes Received:
    8,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Is there not a fairly substantial consensus among climate scientists for AGW?
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And consensus means nothing.
     
  7. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,734
    Likes Received:
    8,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And appeals to ignorance means less.

    Who are the policy makers supposed to make their policy decision on, the minority opinion?

    See, you have to see it from a policy point of view, because they are not knowledgeable enough to know, one way or the other.

    You say it is such and such, but from a policy maker's point of view, your point isn't something that can be worked with.
     
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The short version is that policy makers shouldn't be doing anything.
    As for consensus:

    By Michael Crichton
    Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003
    ". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

    Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "

    Aliens Cause Global Warming
    Thursday, January 31st, 2019
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,734
    Likes Received:
    8,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I'm well aware of Michael Chrichton.

    Ahh, but you have erred.

    Half of climate change funding is by the US taxpayer, so we need policy recommendations.

    You see, from a scientists point of view, he is correct.

    You can't ignore politics, it pays half of your salaries, capiche?

    Policy makers are not scientists. One guy says do something, the other says do nothing, and who should we believe?

    The big group, or the little group? WE don't know, so OUR solution is to go by odds, and the odds that the bigger group are correct, or the little group?

    Remember, the truth is not knowable to us because of big conflict y'all don't agree with each other , so we ( as policy makers ) play the odds.

    I should think simple logic dictates that the bigger group has better odds.


    Can you find fault with the point of view of a policy maker?

    What you are suggesting, doing nothing, is unemployment for a lot of scientists because the government funds about half of it and the policy makers are to do nothing with the lot of science taxpayers have funded, then, of what value are these scientists whose taxes are paying their salaries?

    We're talking billions here, for what, 'nothing to see here, get used to it'?


    I don't think so.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2022
    Melb_muser likes this.
  10. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    65,466
    Likes Received:
    14,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    BOTH.
    Both could be right.
    Both could be wrong.
    Both could be partially correct.
    The world isn't binary, nor are events in the world.

    The wise choice is to take care of the planet and not destroy all the resources there are.
    But to use the resources there are but not wipe out resources.

    There's a rule of thumb I was taught growing up. If you borrow something, bring it back in as good of shape or better than when you borrowed it.
    Humans are just borrowing this planet. Don't leave it worse than when humans got here.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2022
    Melb_muser likes this.
  11. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    65,466
    Likes Received:
    14,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That that property is safe for the next 30 yrs. After that, it's not his concern.
     
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The science would continue in any case. Disruptive "corrective" measures would stop.
     
  13. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    41,866
    Likes Received:
    16,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So if Obama's position is, "after I'm dead, who cares?" Why should anyone else care who will be dead in 30 years?
     
  14. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    65,466
    Likes Received:
    14,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know, why should they? If it doesn't matter in 50 yrs to someone, why should someone care?

    He may or may not care about climate change impact, that's a different topic.
    But if he owns beach front property today, what that property looks like in 30 yrs may not be a concern, personally.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2022
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, consensus is pretty much everything you get.

    Scientific method does not provide proof - it provides proof of falsity. Science progresses by proving invalid hypotheses to be false.

    What we get is the agreement of the preponderance of related scientists that sufficient effort has been applied without proof of falsity.

    So far, that is the case for the root of the concerns about climate - that warming is happening and is anthropogenic in origin.

    You know this. I don't know why you keep pretending that isn't true.
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to do WAY better than that.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't agree that directions in favor of slowing greenhouse gas emissions can be cast off as disruptive.

    Air pollution due to transportation burning 2/3 of our total oil consumption has a very real cost. Moving away from that can save that cost. It can also improve our balance of trade.

    The same goes for coal, which is being replaced by natural gas - not great, but certainly less productive of greenhouse gas and other emissions than is coal. One can not write off this change as a pure cost.

    The advent of clean energy is a gigantic emerging segment of the world economy that we ignore at our peril. We're already losing out to China and Germany (at least). Plus, the advent of electric transportation is a related and serious economic opportunity. Encouraging these segments can not be considered a loss.

    We already have more employees in clean energy than in oil or coal. We've spent a hundred years giving federal benefits to oil and coal. We should be moving that support toward clean energy - and moving that support does not count as adding cost.
     
  18. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,863
    Likes Received:
    11,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't like these labels, as they tend to be value judgements being applied for various political purposes.

    Is it alarming to note that Earth is warming due to human activity?

    Is it alarming to note that the warming of tundra is beginning a progression of increased emissions of the most potent of greenhouse gasses?

    Is it alarming to note what has been happening in New Orleans, the city of Miami Beach, South Pacific islands displacing whole nationalities, etc.?

    It seems like one person could say that mentioning these things is alarmism and someone else could say that is just the facts that we need to deal with.
     
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because it isn't true.
     
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Economic, scientific and historical nonsense, all in one post.
     
  22. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,863
    Likes Received:
    11,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not to me. I don't get alarmed by opinions.

    Not before such a progression occurs.

    No, people should know that climate warming can raise sea level as it has done many times.

    Not alarmism. Not facts. Opinions. Partisan politics.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good! Feeling alarmed isn't productive.
    Scientists are pointing out that emissions from tundra are increasing as the region warms. These emissions include methane (possibly the worst greenhouse gas) as well as carbon from decomposing and burning tundra.
    Why should people just "know" that? Isn't it reasonable to suggest that information concerning sea level be presented?
    What I mentioned isn't opinion. It's actual measured reality.

    What's happening with the tundra, with sea level, etc. is not partisan - it's reality.
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well argued! (LOL!)
     
    Melb_muser and dairyair like this.
  25. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,863
    Likes Received:
    11,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps we should collect the methane and convert it to LNG. I wonder if it is possible. I'm not arguing measurements, by the way, I'm arguing what they mean. Taking measurements is trivial. Analyzing them is where the money and politics enter the discussion.
     

Share This Page