Conservative answer to Global Warming

[Zara]

"Climate change" as the left understands it exists almost entirely in dozens of wildly inaccurate models, numerous failed predictions, and sketchy "adjusted" data. At this point, there's barely even a viable hypothesis to push back against.

The world's most prestigious scientific academies disagree with your opinion, the world's leading institutions disagree with your opinion, the world's business leaders disagree, the world's governments disagree. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist, that's fine. Again, it comes under the banner of wilful ignorance at this stage. I hope that justice comes down hard.

Not to end this deeply intelligent discussion, but I will abide by the OP and discontinue this enlightening discussion with you. You can claim last word victory if you like.

[Teallaura]

Do you believe you can make a contribution to the field of theoretical physics? You appear to be highly intelligent, but not versed in that field or the field of climatology such that you are permitted to make a contribution. There is a reason PhDs aren't just given out.

You can dispute how we act on the facts, not the facts themselves. Your client is finding one out of 2000 doctors' diagnoses that supports their opinion of "it's not AGW", close examination of that doctor's conflicts of interest shows their research to be of dubious motivation, would that stand up in court?

Papers are all the same - read methodology FIRST. See if it's good or bad before bothering with the results.

FYI: I did study physics for a while -physics I understood. Calculus hated me.

Was a Phd candidate as well - life happened.

I am not nearly as impressed with alphabet soup names as I am with well reasoned, well researched work. In my experience, you find far more of the former than the latter in academia.

The issue is truth. Conflict of interest and consensus may point to weaknesses or strengths but the argument or theory lives or dies on its merit. Once in a while, the lone guy is right - actually, that has happened frequently in scientific history.

Um, also, given the huge economic potential for being on the politically correct side of climate change, you might not wanna use conflict of interest as your counterpoint.

[Zara]

Papers are all the same - read methodology FIRST. See if it's good or bad before bothering with the results.

FYI: I did study physics for a while -physics I understood. Calculus hated me.

Was a Phd candidate as well - life happened.

I am not nearly as impressed with alphabet soup names as I am with well reasoned, well researched work. In my experience, you find far more of the former than the latter in academia.

The issue is truth. Conflict of interest and consensus may point to weaknesses or strengths but the argument or theory lives or dies on its merit. Once in a while, the lone guy is right - actually, that has happened frequently in scientific history.

Um, also, given the huge economic potential for being on the politically correct side of climate change, you might not wanna use conflict of interest as your counterpoint.

I am not surprised by your accomplishments.

I have no doubt that if a good theory overturns current research then I am justified in changing my mind. This has not happened, so for the time being - the consensus is the truth. You can cherry pick examples from the history of science where theories have been overturned, that does not tell us anything about this theory outside of it being possible to overturn it with sufficient evidence - i.e., that science works as it should. I could also cherry pick examples of where science found a problem but public policy did not change because of vested interest.

I don't like it any more than anyone does that realises it will require us to change how we live. But those are the cards dealt. Taking responsibility for ones actions and not being entitled appear to be conservative maxims, so I continue to be surprised that it is the loony left that is demanding we stop living beyond our means and take responsibility for our waste.

[Teallaura]

I am not surprised by your accomplishments.

I have no doubt that if a good theory overturns current research then I am justified in changing my mind. This has not happened, so for the time being - the consensus is the truth. You can cherry pick examples from the history of science where theories have been overturned, that does not tell us anything about this theory outside of it being possible to overturn it with sufficient evidence - i.e., that science works as it should. I could also cherry pick examples of where science found a problem but public policy did not change because of vested interest.

I don't like it any more than anyone does that realises it will require us to change how we live. But those are the cards dealt. Taking responsibility for ones actions and not being entitled appear to be conservative maxims, so I continue to be surprised that it is the loony left that is demanding we stop living beyond our means and take responsibility for our waste.

Sigh - I commented on the history without citing examples - literally the antithesis of cherry picking.

Consensus is NEVER truth - consensus may reflect truth but can never be truth.

And for pity's sake, what the heck does simple environmental engineering have to do with not pointlessly destroying the economy? What is costing the Chicken Little faction is that they keep upping the ante. They have to have lockstep agreement on their view and can't think even slightly outside the box. Instead of 'you must believe' why not try 'hey, if we do X it'll have y benefit'. I'm on board with desertification reclamation which has carbon benefits - why would it matter if I believe your consensus guys aren't just out to line their pockets or not?

Environmentalists have been fighting battles and losing wars since the late Seventies. It's become an industry and a lot of the problem is exactly that.

[Zara]

Sigh - I commented on the history without citing examples - literally the antithesis of cherry picking.

Good. I was forestalling. Since MM also mentioned this, he seemed to think it was a reason to dismiss the conclusion of current science. If that wasn't why you're mentioning it, then all good. I was also using it to show that current science can be overturned if sufficient evidence is presented. A thesis you seem to want to deny.

Consensus is NEVER truth - consensus may reflect truth but can never be truth.

Sure, but it is what we work as being the case. I.e., we will act as if this is the case until it is shown otherwise. Or at least, rational beings would. Just like with a diagnosis of HIV you would act as if you had it, or at least, a rational being would.

And for pity's sake, what the heck does simple environmental engineering have to do with not pointlessly destroying the economy? What is costing the Chicken Little faction is that they keep upping the ante. They have to have lockstep agreement on their view and can't think even slightly outside the box. Instead of 'you must believe' why not try 'hey, if we do X it'll have y benefit'. I'm on board with desertification reclamation which has carbon benefits - why would it matter if I believe your consensus guys aren't just out to line their pockets or not?

I don't know what you're talking about. The world agreed in Paris. That involved considerable initiative from governments that have little interest in dealing with a problem unless they justifiably believe it to be a problem (act rationally). Every single government signed up (197), with 185 having ratified it to date. Most advanced economies are creating strong frameworks to meet their current NDCs and surpass them. So are countries like India and China. The US agreed, then US particularism took over, and now it's some extremism 'destroy the economy' rhetoric. Meeting US NDCs - which are woefully inadequate currently btw - for the Paris Agreement will not 'destroy' the US economy. Not doing so, is very risky given the current theory and its possible effects - this isn't some super alarmism, but simply working from the best evidence we have. If you haven't read this, have a look: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-...ks-report-2019

[Adrift]

So I'm just going to summarise. I hope I'm getting people right on this.

Seer and Adrift suggested the conservative response could entail rolling back regulations holding nuclear power back. Which would result in a cheap, affordable, dependable and long lasting energy source. The contention being that US Democrats (in the form of greenies and hippies) have been responsible for spreading fear and holding that technology back.

I actually don't think that conservatives will necessarily be interested in rolling back regulations holding nuclear energy, not for the sake of climate change at least. I don't think it's something they'd even think about unless there was an energy crisis, and we don't seem to be at crisis point currently. I also don't know where Democrats will move on this in the future. I currently side with Green Party types who are against nuclear energy, but as I mentioned, a new generation on the left seem to be in support of nuclear energy, so Democrats may move in that direction after all. But of course, if that does happen, then likely Republicans may end up being against it after all, because it seems to be the role of a two party system for one side to always be against the views of the other side, for no other reason than it's Us vs. Them.

Ultimately I think the Conservative answer to Global Warming is wait until the last second, and then scramble around like madmen trying to fix it.

[Teallaura]

Sigh - really busy tonight and I will get back to the rest of this but I meant what I said - the theory lives or dies on its own merit - period. My actual degrees are in Poli Sci and I took a LOT of stats and survey research. I can get astrophysicists to agree the Earth is flat and stars are really big fireflies given the right circumstances and clever wording - consensus does not impress me because human collective decision making IS my field.

Scientists put pants on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us. They are the weakest - and the strongest - links. So no, rational people do not take their word as Gospel - nor dismiss their work without review. THE WORK, NOT THE OPINION POLL, IS WHAT MATTERS.

The folks that doubt HIV is causally linked to AIDS have a reasonable, rational case. The case for the causal link is much stronger - but I'll concede it could still be wrong. What I told my patients when I gave them their test results was that it was causally linked - because that was the best answer we had then and now. We go with the BEST case - not the most popular one. It irritates me no end when people denigrate others for merely arguing differently. Look at the argument/theory/case - not the popularity poll.

We had an ER physician send us a patient because the Health Dept could treat his syphilis case for free. I took one look at his hands and thought the exact same thing the doctor had - syphilis. The signs are tell tale and I'd probably seen it more frequently than the doctor. Thing was, we experts were both wrong - the patient didn't have syphilis at all. That's why we do testing rather than just shooting people full of antibiotics - you can't always tell a horse from a dirty zebra without a good look.

[Mountain Man]

The world's most prestigious scientific academies disagree with your opinion, the world's leading institutions disagree with your opinion, the world's business leaders disagree, the world's governments disagree.

That'd be great if consensus meant a damn in science.


What we need for "climate change" to get off the ground is a hypothesis. You then make a prediction based on that hypothesis and test it. If it fails, you adjust the hypothesis (NOT the data!) and then restest. You continue until the hypothesis can reliably predict the results, and then you have a theory.

Climatologists have tried to skip the first several steps and gone directly to the last, and that's why when I look at the history of "climate change", all see are dozens of wildly inaccurate models, countless failed predictions, and data that has been corrupted through in some cases unpublished "adjustments". Go see if you can find the raw historical data at any of the official archives. You can't. It has been scrubbed from existence. Why would they need to hide it if the science is good?

If creationists engaged in this sort of behavior and then had the gall to declare the matter "settled", the howls of protest from the secular scientific community would be deafening.

[oxmixmudd]

Sigh - really busy tonight and I will get back to the rest of this but I meant what I said - the theory lives or dies on its own merit - period. My actual degrees are in Poli Sci and I took a LOT of stats and survey research. I can get astrophysicists to agree the Earth is flat and stars are really big fireflies ...

No, actually you can't. And the reason you cant is because of the physics, the data, and the math. Real science is driven by the data, the math, and the scientific principle. But those are the things this sort of discussion avoids, partly because the starter of the thead doesnt want to, and partly because some othersdont want to or cant.

But that is the difference between this sort nebulous, subjective discussion and science.

In this sort of discussion someone can make a statement like the one you just made, and one person's assertion is as good as anothers. But if we pull out the data and the math and the physics, then the nutcase assertions get slammed immediately, and the possible fits to the data get debated and new expriments get created to show, objectively, which ideas have merit and which ones don't.

And by engaging in that process only the most incompetent or the grossly ignorant are left wondering if the world is flat or the stars are little fireflys.

Jim

[Zara]

That'd be great if consensus meant a damn in science.


What we need for "climate change" to get off the ground is a hypothesis. You then make a prediction based on that hypothesis and test it. If it fails, you adjust the hypothesis (NOT the data!) and then restest. You continue until the hypothesis can reliably predict the results, and then you have a theory.

Climatologists have tried to skip the first several steps and gone directly to the last, and that's why when I look at the history of "climate change", all see are dozens of wildly inaccurate models, countless failed predictions, and data that has been corrupted through in some cases unpublished "adjustments". Go see if you can find the raw historical data at any of the official archives. You can't. It has been scrubbed from existence. Why would they need to hide it if the science is good?

If creationists engaged in this sort of behavior and then had the gall to declare the matter "settled", the howls of protest from the secular scientific community would be deafening.

Sorry OP.

The earth is circa 4.5 billion years old. This is settled. You could maybe find 1 scientist in 2000 that disagrees with that claim. However, we both agree I assume that that scientist is a crackpot. Irrespective of whether the universe is creation or not.

At the start of scientific investigation into the age of earth, there were probably mistakes made, some said x, some said y. Eventually it was agreed on 4.5 billion. This could be changed if new evidence comes to light. It is unlikely that it will ever be changed to 7,000 years.

As I posted earlier, "The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW."

Why are you hitching your wagon to one dude, Crichton? Why are you even doubting climate science full stop. It makes no sense.

[JimL]

Sorry OP.

The earth is circa 4.5 billion years old. This is settled. You could maybe find 1 scientist in 2000 that disagrees with that claim. However, we both agree I assume that that scientist is a crackpot. Irrespective of whether the universe is creation or not.

At the start of scientific investigation into the age of earth, there were probably mistakes made, some said x, some said y. Eventually it was agreed on 4.5 billion. This could be changed if new evidence comes to light. It is unlikely that it will ever be changed to 7,000 years.

As I posted earlier, "The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW."

Why are you hitching your wagon to one dude, Crichton? Why are you even doubting climate science full stop. It makes no sense.

Right, denying climate change doesn't make any sense, so what they have is ulterior motives, i.e. they either don't care, or they can't admit to facts because of political ideology.

[Zara]

Sigh - really busy tonight and I will get back to the rest of this but I meant what I said - the theory lives or dies on its own merit - period. My actual degrees are in Poli Sci and I took a LOT of stats and survey research. I can get astrophysicists to agree the Earth is flat and stars are really big fireflies given the right circumstances and clever wording - consensus does not impress me because human collective decision making IS my field.

Scientists put pants on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us. They are the weakest - and the strongest - links. So no, rational people do not take their word as Gospel - nor dismiss their work without review. THE WORK, NOT THE OPINION POLL, IS WHAT MATTERS.

But that gives another example of why we need scientists and not pundits to determine scientific conclusions - and why I am demanding that people's opinions need to be treated with a grain of salt compared to that of the scientific community.

Regarding opinion polls, I cited that 99.95% of the work - from across the world's academies - agrees that climate change is largely anthropocentric in nature. The consensus is not an opinion poll, it is a systematic literature review. Academies are independent, however, government scientists too are interested in the phenomenon and they are not disagreeing with that finding - they have very different incentives.

The folks that doubt HIV is causally linked to AIDS have a reasonable, rational case. The case for the causal link is much stronger - but I'll concede it could still be wrong. What I told my patients when I gave them their test results was that it was causally linked - because that was the best answer we had then and now. We go with the BEST case - not the most popular one. It irritates me no end when people denigrate others for merely arguing differently. Look at the argument/theory/case - not the popularity poll.

We had an ER physician send us a patient because the Health Dept could treat his syphilis case for free. I took one look at his hands and thought the exact same thing the doctor had - syphilis. The signs are tell tale and I'd probably seen it more frequently than the doctor. Thing was, we experts were both wrong - the patient didn't have syphilis at all. That's why we do testing rather than just shooting people full of antibiotics - you can't always tell a horse from a dirty zebra without a good look.

People make mistakes. However, people tend to remember the mistakes and forget all the times that their assessments are correct. My guess is that 99/100 times you are right about a diagnosis - especially if you get 1999 second opinions that all agree.

For the sake of the thread, can we move into the topic?

You suggested conservatives could get on board regenerating forests, but that it needs to be done carefully? That doesn't sound like a bad idea. What about stopping deforestation, that seems to be cheaper and immediately effective?

[Mountain Man]

The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature.

No, the only source is whether or not the hypothesis can make correct predictions, and in the case of "climate change", the answer has been a resounding no.

Why are you even doubting climate science full stop?

I'm not. It's because of climate science that I'm reasonably skeptical of the "climate change" hysteria.

[Zara]

No, the only source is whether or not the hypothesis can make correct predictions, and in the case of "climate change", the answer has been a resounding no.

Again, this is your opinion about the current correlation between models and effects or based on some papers that were wrong. Not all climate papers will be correct. Not all papers regarding the age of earth were correct. However they were all correct that creation was not 7,000 years ago.

I do not believe there is a global conspiracy to pull the wool over our eyes for some unknown reason. The scientific community is in agreement that the effect of exhausting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is likely to have a long-term climate forcing effect. The temperature anomaly is now 1.0C, while the level of greenhouse gases are at levels not seen in 800,000 years. The increase itself of those gases is unprecedented in recent historical record - the mechanism for that release has been humans not some unknown cause. An anomaly of 3.0C is likely to overwhelm governments that depend on climate stability for economic systems to function - many of the world's governments are already in a precarious position - failed states will create migrants, migrants create pressures, pressures create instability, etc. It's not a good story, while 3.0C isn't even that high.

I'm not. It's because of climate science that I'm reasonably skeptical of the "climate change" hysteria.

Yet the world's more prestigious scientific institutions are in agreement, the world's governments are in agreement, the business community is by-and-large in agreement. You think that your assessment of the situation is better than theirs? It isn't.

The alarm exists because people realise that if we are frogs in a pot, then it is likely too late by the time that the sceptical\vested interest frogs agree that there is a problem. Humans are notorious when it comes to dealing with problems - if the house isn't actually burning down then irresponsible entitled people doing something to prevent one that may cost them gets put off.

[Mountain Man]

Let's use your doctor analogy: suppose your doctor was following the "consensus of medical science", but he could not demonstrate that the "consensus" opinion would lead to a correct diagnosis or cure, and that the "consensus" had been wildly wrong about both in the past, regularly predicting the exact opposite of what happened in reality. Would you still be willing to swallow the pill he just handed you?