Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, DosXX said:

You're being pedantic, but if you wish to play the semantics game I am more than willing to call you a climate change skeptic. The implication in "denialism" is a significant deviation from the status quo as agreed upon by experts. If you tell me the Sun will rise tomorrow and I say it isn't, it would not be a stretch to call me a Sunrise denier, despite there being absurd but logically sound arguments I could make that challenge the sunrise. For example, I could claim you are assuming the invariability of the laws of physics in time, which have so far held true but are "unproven" to continue to the future. Science never claims the certainty of anything with 100%, there are always baked in assumptions that you could challenge ad nauseum. When science claims something is a fact, it is choosing not to consider breaks in underlying assumptions from extremely low probable events (such as a break in the immutability of the laws of modern physics). Bigfoot and climate change are a false equivalence in terms of probability of being truth given certain assumptions, as are the sun rising tomorrow and climate change, so I hope it's clear why your claim regarding responsibility of proof (while true in a general sense) does not apply to established scientific claims. It would not be useful to sit here and go through the science that "proves" humans are the primary factor in climate change, in the same way it wouldn't be for me to explain general relativity and stellar physics to "prove" that the Sun will rise tomorrow, so I encourage you to read the research beyond reactionary commentary on cherry picked predictive failures in previous decades. Again, you could always argue something hasn't been proved, but at some point science says we will accept the assumptions and claim it as being true, always being open to the possibility that it is falsified in the future. So no, science will never prove anything definitively, but human influence on climate change is past the point where it is debatable in a scientifically productive sense.

Going back to the earlier example, the scientific method as taught in high school (which you seem to be referring to here) is also impossible to apply to definitively proving the rising of the Sun. The climate is a chaotic, but deterministic, system which is theoretically computable to perfect accuracy given enough information. At any point in the last 800,000 years you could have predicted a rise or fall in temperature following a rise/fall in C02 within 2 degrees 99% of the time with only this data. You could challenge this and say that it could be that the causal link is backwards and that it's temperature which affects C02 levels, so again I'll refer you to actually read the research to see how scientists isolate the causal link.

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for  Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data  Center (NCDC)

The science is clear enough to make a statement on the primary influence of humans on climate change. The politics are what we choose to do about it. Maybe we are just a drop in the bucket and have no reason to do anything when China and India pollute so much more. Maybe the economic costs of the Paris Accords do not justify the future costs in damage. I am more than willing to engage with those arguments on a policy level, but fundamentally there is still a rejection of the notion that humans cause climate change which cannot be overlooked if we want to debate the politics of it.

 

 

 

 

You know how when you train facial recognition AI with only people of one race, it can only detect reliably the people of that same race? All of these climate models developed off of limited data have the same problem; it’s trained off of high fidelity data from only a period with industrial humans. The historical data back to 800,000 years is highly based off of assumptions...that fit one hypothesis. 
 

You’re not using science, you’re practicing religion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, you could be right-leaning like me and think that we are changing the climate, but still disavow the leftist attempts to over-regulate everything.

1. We are changing the climate.

2. We don't have to find or buy into the "political" solutions; we can (and probably will) find technical/engineering ones. In 90 minutes, more energy arrives on the planet than humans use in an entire year, from all sources.

The form this debate takes is a complete side-show to me. There is this trope on the right where any admission that humans are affecting the planet means we have to go along with the green new deal, or whatever - we don't. There's also this group on the left that is blind to the source of most of human progress - technology, not politics. I scoff both frames.

  • Like 7
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Or, you could be right-leaning like me and think that we are changing the climate, but still disavow the leftist attempts to over-regulate everything.

1. We are changing the climate.

2. We don't have to find or buy into the "political" solutions; we can (and probably will) find technical/engineering ones. In 90 minutes, more energy arrives on the planet than humans use in an entire year, from all sources.

The form this debate takes is a complete side-show to me. There is this trope on the right where any admission that humans are affecting the planet means we have to go along with the green new deal, or whatever - we don't. There's also this group on the left that is blind to the source of most of human progress - technology, not politics. I scoff both frames.

I'm going to borrow that. Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Charts can be funny like that.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

Even if I knew nothing about the theory, models, or underlying data, the overwhelming and religious-like commitment to the cause by a whole bunch of politicians, actors, other non-scientists is enough to make me skeptical. But I do know more, and dang near every time a supporter of the theory posts a chart, there's something the chart is misrepresenting.

 

You're selectively ignoring the part where I discredit the chart I used using an example counterargument and specifically state to read the papers that explain how the causal link was isolated.  

18 hours ago, DosXX said:

You could challenge this and say that it could be that the causal link is backwards and that it's temperature which affects C02 levels, so again I'll refer you to actually read the research to see how scientists isolate the causal link.

Of course correlation does not equal causation, that's such an elementary argument to make and it's a strawman of what I'm actually saying. There is no way to practical way to prove to you in a forum why there is more than just a loose correlation between human activity and climate change. In medicine, one something passes the three sigma test (99.7%) the study will claim there was a statistically significant relationship found, whether it be lung cancer and smoking, drinking and blood pressure, etc. Despite the fact it is never a "proven" (in the sense of 100% certainty), doctors and scientists are of course always open to the 0.3% chance that there is no causal relationship or that the data can be explained otherwise. It's difficult to address what you linked because I'm not a climate change expert and it is very lengthy, but I'll certainly read it. The link between humans and climate change may not have three sigma certainty yet, but it is the conservative consensus is at least two sigma, which of course leaves the 5% possibility that there is no causal link. Since we mentioned models here as well, here a retrospective metastudy over the past 5 decades that analyzed the predictive capabilities of climate models.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2019GL085378

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DosXX said:

You're selectively ignoring the part where I discredit the chart I used using an example counterargument and specifically state to read the papers that explain how the causal link was isolated.  

Of course correlation does not equal causation, that's such an elementary argument to make and it's a strawman of what I'm actually saying. There is no way to practical way to prove to you in a forum why there is more than just a loose correlation between human activity and climate change. In medicine, one something passes the three sigma test (99.7%) the study will claim there was a statistically significant relationship found, whether it be lung cancer and smoking, drinking and blood pressure, etc. Despite the fact it is never a "proven" (in the sense of 100% certainty), doctors and scientists are of course always open to the 0.3% chance that there is no causal relationship or that the data can be explained otherwise. It's difficult to address what you linked because I'm not a climate change expert and it is very lengthy, but I'll certainly read it. The link between humans and climate change may not have three sigma certainty yet, but it is the conservative consensus is at least two sigma, which of course leaves the 5% possibility that there is no causal link. Since we mentioned models here as well, here a retrospective metastudy over the past 5 decades that analyzed the predictive capabilities of climate models.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2019GL085378

Isolating the causal link isn't enough if you completely destroy the correlation by using a more granular scale. The theory of human-caused global warming is based on a whopping 50-100 years of industrialized activity and the associated rise in CO2 as a result. Any historical use of temperature and CO2 activity (even when ignoring the near impossibility of estimating a "global" temperature from times before precision and satellite instrumentation) needs to compare short-term shifts measured in years and decades, not centuries and millennia.

 

Climate change is much closer to economics than it is to science. It's almost entirely retrospective with no ability to effectively isolate the multivariate problem down to individual, testable components. And like economics, the theories and models are often unable to predict the future, making them invalid.

 

The rabbit hole to go down is the actual temperature datasets. The Manhattan Contrarian has a great series in this where the arbitrary yet consistently one-sided adjustments to the data sets are shown to be loose at best. Those datasets are the foundation for nearly all climate research. Bad foundation, bad house.

Edited by Lord Ratner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sun hits the Earth with 173,000 trillion watts of solar power every day which is 10,000 times what humans use and somehow we are causing a change?  I'd give the global cooling/warming/climate change crowd more credibility if just one of their predictions had come true over the past 40 years. You would think with perfect hindsight at least one climate model would be accurate. 

Edited by TreeA10
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, busdriver said:

Want to slash American carbon?  Build nuclear power plants.  

Just spent a year and a half running a state nuclear response team (loved the job but to tell you how much the upper management in state government sucks, I just took a job as an AFJROTC instructor-would rather deal with teenagers...), the whole radiation thing is way overblown and the risk of a serious nuclear power plant accident that impacts the public is extremely small. And the safety culture at nuclear power plants makes Air Force aviation safety culture look positively careless from what I could tell.  

 

Edited by pbar
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pbar said:

Just spent a year and a half running a state nuclear response team (loved the job but to tell you how much the upper management in state government sucks, I just took a job as an AFJROTC instructor-would rather deal with teenagers...), the whole radiation thing is way overblown and the risk of a serious nuclear power plant accident that impacts the public is extremely small. And the safety culture at nuclear power plants makes Air Force aviation safety culture look positively careless from what I could tell.  

 

image.jpeg.2dfab9eb990a1ff6f36e3c97bf87695c.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are generally three types of climate deniers:  

Group 1)  "climate change is not happening."

Group 2) "Ok, climate change is happening, but it's not anthropogenic."

Group 3) "climate change is happening, and Ok, is anthropogenic, but...the effects will be minimal , and certainly not worth changing our way of life."

--Due to the overwhelming amount of evidence from multiple independent fields of study, Group 1 has thankfully shrunk and most in Group 1 have migrated to Group 2.  If someone is still Group 1 at this point, there's nothing you can do for them.  It's like chemtrailers or flat-earthers.  Evidence is irrelevant to them.  

--Group 2's popular mantra, echoed by BrickHistory, is (to paraphrase) "the earth goes through cycles.  Yes it's currently warming, but it has warmed in the past.  We've had ice ages.  We've even had periods in earth's history that are warmer than today.  Therefore, we can conclude that humans play no (or negligible) part in it."  This is the premier example of Dunning-Kreuger.  It's a cringeworthy reminder that most people with a strong denial of climate change have literally never bothered to do any research into it at all.  How do I know?  Because any scientific book, journal, debate, lecture, etc. on the subject will immediately frame the problem in terms of rate of change.  No credible scientist disputes that the earth has experienced large variations in climate.  The difference now is the rate.  It's faster.  That's the core assertion.  Change that used to take 10's or 100's of thousands of years is now occurring over centuries or decades.  

Let's say you mow your lawn once every other week.  The grass grows, you cut it.  Cyclical.  What sort of questions would you raise if you found yourself having to mow the grass every day.  Or every hour.  That's the difference.  Not simply that the grass grows and you have to cut it, but that the rate is freakishly fast, and accelerating.  So what would you do?  You'd try to figure out why.   ....did I use a different fertilizer?  More water?  Did I plant a new type of grass?  Is there something in/under the soil?  ....You get the point.  You would try to isolate the independent variable.  When it comes to climate change, there are indeed many natural factors that affect it (solar irradiance, axial tilt, etc.).  But those have always existed.  And they're measurable.  Again, with just a little research you will find that science can easily isolate the variables.  Those variables do have an effect, but they do not account for the massive increase in the current rate of climate change.  

Group 2ers parroting the "Earth goes through natural cycles" are like someone having a really strong opinion on how the KC--NE game will go tomorrow.  But as the conversation continues, it becomes clear they've never even heard of Patrick Mahomes or Bill Belichick.  They saw a meme, or overhead something they thought sounded clever on TV and want to present it as their own.  But they don't actually know anything about the two teams.  Or maybe even about football.  ....So you cringe, possibly roll your eyes, and go find someone else to talk to.

--Group 3ers concede to the overwhelming evidence, but try to minimalize it.  Their group is, in my experience, characterized by pessimism, apathy, and defeat.  As you've heard here, Group 3ers will say 'China and India are larger carbon emitters.'  Or that wind/solar/renewables are expensive and consume energy to build, thus negating the effort.  The mantra is essentially, "it's too difficult.....so fvck it."  Not the America I know.  We are the global leader, the superpower.  We have global influence.  Other countries do what we do.  At least for now.  If we would simply lead, others would follow.  Likewise, innovation is tough.  Maybe solar and wind aren't the end-all, be-all.  Or maybe not in their current form.  We have to experiment.  Risk failure.  We have to try.  There are dozens of proposed lines of effort out there....we don't need all of them to work.  But none will work if we just give up.  It's a complex problem, like say, landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.  We could embrace the challenge and see similar results as the space race -- leaps in technological advances, achievement of a common goal, etc.  Or we can say 'fvck it, it's too tough for us.  Let's let China or the EU figure it out.' 

For those of you in Group 1, 2, and 3, I will close with this:  Climate change is happening and is anthropogenic.  There is no question of that basic premise.  Donald Trump and Joe Biden and AOC and Nancy and Mitch will all come and go.  Even Al Gore will be gone one day.  But climate change will be with us for the rest of all our lives.  And our children's.  It's not going away, and I encourage you each year, or each decade to pause and ask: "Hmmm....is that pesky climate change thing over yet?  Did the scientists, who dedicate their lives to understanding this, collecting data and evidence in dozens of fields of study, all over the globe finally realize they were wrong this whole time and that the earth 'just goes through cycles?'  Did they finally give up and admit this was a leftist conspiracy and a hoax to drive a carbon tax?"  The answer will be No.  We can discuss, like ViperMan suggests, the validity of specific policies and proposals and the way forward -- that's where the debate needs to be.  But again, for the record, 100%, you will not see anthropogenic climate change just fade into a non-issue or revealed as some sort of elaborate hoax.  In your whole life.  Regardless of the petty noise and friction and squabbling on the internet, in the media, or even in the halls of congress.

Edited by SpeedOfHeat
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

There are generally three types of climate deniers:  

Group 1)  "climate change is not happening."

Group 2) "Ok, climate change is happening, but it's not anthropogenic."

Group 3) "climate change is happening, and Ok, is anthropogenic, but...the effects will be minimal , and certainly not worth changing our way of life."

--Due to the overwhelming amount of evidence from multiple independent fields of study, Group 1 has thankfully shrunk and most in Group 1 have migrated to Group 2.  If someone is still Group 1 at this point, there's nothing you can do for them.  It's like chemtrailers or flat-earthers.  Evidence is irrelevant to them.  

--Group 2's popular mantra, echoed by BrickHistory, is (to paraphrase) "the earth goes through cycles.  Yes it's currently warming, but it has warmed in the past.  We've had ice ages.  We've even had periods in earth's history that are warmer than today.  Therefore, we can conclude that humans play no (or negligible) part in it."  This is the premier example of Dunning-Kreuger.  It's a cringeworthy reminder that most people with a strong denial of climate change have literally never bothered to do any research into it at all.  How do I know?  Because any scientific book, journal, debate, lecture, etc. on the subject will immediately frame the problem in terms of rate of change.  No credible scientist disputes that the earth has experienced large variations in climate.  The difference now is the rate.  It's faster.  That's the core assertion.  Change that used to take 10's or 100's of thousands of years is now occurring over centuries or decades.  

Let's say you mow your lawn once every other week.  The grass grows, you cut it.  Cyclical.  What sort of questions would you raise if you found yourself having to mow the grass every day.  Or every hour.  That's the difference.  Not simply that the grass grows and you have to cut it, but that the rate is freakishly fast, and accelerating.  So what would you do?  You'd try to figure out why.   ....did I use a different fertilizer?  More water?  Did I plant a new type of grass?  Is there something in/under the soil?  ....You get the point.  You would try to isolate the independent variable.  When it comes to climate change, there are indeed many natural factors that affect it (solar irradiance, axial tilt, etc.).  But those have always existed.  And they're measurable.  Again, with just a little research you will find that science can easily isolate the variables.  Those variables do have an effect, but they do not account for the massive increase in the current rate of climate change.  

Group 2ers parroting the "Earth goes through natural cycles" are like someone having a really strong opinion on how the KC--NE game will go tomorrow.  But as the conversation continues, it becomes clear they've never even heard of Patrick Mahomes or Bill Belichick.  They saw a meme, or overhead something they thought sounded clever on TV and want to present it as their own.  But they don't actually know anything about the two teams.  Or maybe even about football.  ....So you cringe, possibly roll your eyes, and go find someone else to talk to.

--Group 3ers concede to the overwhelming evidence, but try to minimalize it.  Their group is, in my experience, characterized by pessimism, apathy, and defeat.  As you've heard here, Group 3ers will say 'China and India are larger carbon emitters.'  Or that wind/solar/renewables are expensive and consume energy to build, thus negating the effort.  The mantra is essentially, "it's too difficult.....so fvck it."  Not the America I know.  We are the global leader, the superpower.  We have global influence.  Other countries do what we do.  At least for now.  If we would simply lead, others would follow.  Likewise, innovation is tough.  Maybe solar and wind aren't the end-all, be-all.  Or maybe not in their current form.  We have to experiment.  Risk failure.  We have to try.  There are dozens of proposed lines of effort out there....we don't need all of them to work.  But none will work if we just give up.  It's a complex problem, like say, landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.  We could embrace the challenge and see similar results as the space race -- leaps in technological advances, achievement of a common goal, etc.  Or we can say 'fvck it, it's too tough for us.  Let's let China or the EU figure it out.' 

For those of you in Group 1, 2, and 3, I will close with this:  Climate change is happening and is anthropogenic.  There is no question of that basic premise.  Donald Trump and Joe Biden and AOC and Nancy and Mitch will all come and go.  Even Al Gore will be gone one day.  But climate change will be with us for the rest of all our lives.  And our children's.  It's not going away, and I encourage you each year, or each decade to pause and ask: "Hmmm....is that pesky climate change thing over yet?  Did the scientists, who dedicate their lives to understanding this, collecting data and evidence in dozens of fields of study, all over the globe finally realize they were wrong this whole time and that the earth 'just goes through cycles?'  Did they finally give up and admit this was a leftist conspiracy and a hoax to drive a carbon tax?"  The answer will be No.  We can discuss, like ViperMan suggests, the validity of specific policies and proposals and the way forward -- that's where the debate needs to be.  But again, for the record, 100%, you will not see anthropogenic climate change just fade into a non-issue or revealed as some sort of elaborate hoax.  In your whole life.  Regardless of the petty noise and friction and squabbling on the internet, in the media, or even in the halls of congress.

Present evidence, not correlation based on models trained from data based only on industrial humans.  You've presented no science whatsoever, just an emotional diatribe.  That's not science.

Edited by SurelySerious
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

--Group 3ers concede to the overwhelming evidence, but try to minimalize it.  Their group is, in my experience, characterized by pessimism, apathy, and defeat.  As you've heard here, Group 3ers will say 'China and India are larger carbon emitters.'  Or that wind/solar/renewables are expensive and consume energy to build, thus negating the effort.  The mantra is essentially, "it's too difficult.....so fvck it."  Not the America I know.  We are the global leader, the superpower.  We have global influence.  Other countries do what we do.  At least for now.  If we would simply lead, others would follow.  Likewise, innovation is tough.  Maybe solar and wind aren't the end-all, be-all.  Or maybe not in their current form.  We have to experiment.  Risk failure.  We have to try.  There are dozens of proposed lines of effort out there....we don't need all of them to work.  But none will work if we just give up.  It's a complex problem, like say, landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.  We could embrace the challenge and see similar results as the space race -- leaps in technological advances, achievement of a common goal, etc.  Or we can say 'fvck it, it's too tough for us.  Let's let China or the EU figure it out.' 
 

Here's a few questions for you to ponder as a Group 3 type person for you to consider. 1.) You claim the US is a superpower, has global influence and is capable of the impossible. How long do you expect that to last? 2.) What is the cost of failure/risk when you are bargaining with the US electrical power grid? 3.) Why does the US have a responsibility to be the leader in this. We are only 4% of the world population. 4.) What will a failure to reverse climate change look like. Will it really be the end of life? Or the end of humanity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Present evidence, not correlation based on models trained from data based only on industrial humans.  You've presented no science whatsoever, just an emotional diatribe.  That's not science.

The evidence is available to everyone.  I'm not going to summarize climate change for you.  And for two specific reasons: 

First, I don't know what group you're in.  Group 1, you want me to demonstrate that the earth is warming?  No thanks.  Group 2, you want me to provide evidence that global warming is anthropogenic?  Again, ....read.  There are countless books, peer-reviewed scientific journals, articles, videos, periodicals, etc. that are available to everyone.  It's 2020.  Google it.  Type "Climate Change" in to Amazon and order a few books.  Start with this one:  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1612198023?pf_rd_r=9M7GK2BS4CGF80WE05JP&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee.  Also search for references and literature within the DoD.  There's tons available.  The Navy, Marines, and the Joint Staff are full up on this while the AF in particular is lagging.  

Some might say that me not laying out the evidence is a cop-out.  That's fine.  Teach me how algebra works.  Teach me meteorology.  Or chemistry.  On an internet forum.  Present evidence, or else it's just "religion." 

If a flat-earther asks you to present evidence that the earth is in-fact spherical, where do you even begin?

Second, I don't have any confidence that it would matter.  You've made up your mind, ...and you know it.  You think the models are based on 'assumption.'  Specifically, you don't think ice core samples are valid, and therefore the main way we derive data dating back to 800,000 yrs is all invalid.  That's fine.  But you can see why if that's your starting place, it would be a waste of my time to engage and try to prove otherwise.

What I will do is to again reiterate that time will serve as the vindicator.  (*Although I don't know how old you are.  If you're in your 60's or 70's, you'll go to your grave never knowing you were wrong.  If you're under 40, and live to US expectancy, my point stands.) 

See, in you're mind, AGW is wrong, faulty, etc.  And under that logic, surely, there will be a time in the not-so-distant future where mankind will discover that all the science and evidence was mistaken.  "Oopps!  I guess it's just cyclical and 'the earth is gonna earth.'"  <sigh>  Or better yet, it will be reveled that it was a lie perpetuated by nefarious actors in order to tax people.  Well, again, I've got news for you.  It's neither.  And I encourage you, every 5-10 years, to ask if your ideas on AGW have been shown to be true, or whether AGW is still at the forefront of our discussions on energy, national security, food/water scarcity, migration, etc.  Spoiler alert......it's real.

 

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

Here's a few questions for you to ponder as a Group 3 type person for you to consider. 1.) You claim the US is a superpower, has global influence and is capable of the impossible. How long do you expect that to last? 2.) What is the cost of failure/risk when you are bargaining with the US electrical power grid? 3.) Why does the US have a responsibility to be the leader in this. We are only 4% of the world population. 4.) What will a failure to reverse climate change look like. Will it really be the end of life? Or the end of humanity?

1) I never said we were capable of the "impossible."  As far as claiming to be a superpower with global influence, I don't think it's a claim, I think that's a fact, no?  As for how long will it last?  No idea.  .....A very short time if we decide "fvck it," and give up.

2) Don't know.  I assume significant changes to the US electrical power grid would be gradual.  Phased in?  With redundancies and back-ups?  To mitigate risk?  I'm truly not sure what you're getting at.  

3)  We don't.  We can cede the leadership role.  And if the current course continues, we will, in our lifetime.  To China.  I admit I was raised with a post-war American mindset......I harbor ideas about American exceptionalism and the idea that America "is not just one more indistinguishable entity on the world stage, but that the United States has been essential to the preservation and progress of freedom" and that we have a special role to play in that regard. 

Increasingly, we hear themes of isolationism these days.  I get it.  People are tired of endless wars and entanglement abroad.  Heavy lies the crown.  We can take the crown off, stretch our necks and enjoy the temporary relief, but I'm not so sure we'll like how it feels when another country picks it up and dons it.


4)  It won't be the end of life or humanity.  Granted, some book titles, news headlines, and politicians speak with that level of sensationalism to grab attention.  But few scientists think climate change will 'end humanity.' 

Also, very few people talk about 'reversing' climate change.  The discussion centers around slowing and/or mitigating.  But what will it look like?  I don't know.  Take for example India.  The Ganges river is glacial fed, and the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting at an unprecedented rate, giving the 500 million people in the basin below a false impression of the health of the river.  Meanwhile, all indications are that it's going to be monsoon-fed only by the turn of the century.  And they're already depleting the underground aquifers.  Where will those 500 million people go when there's no water?  People don't just sit around and wait to die of dehydration.  There will be mass migration across ethnic, tribal, religious, and state lines.  ....I'm betting there will be some fighting involved.  It won't be the end of humanity, but it'll be a mess.  Similarly, what happens when the Colorado river dries up?  Or when huge portions of Miami are under water?  It won't be the end of humanity.  It'll just suck.  For some more than others.

Edited by SpeedOfHeat
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

The evidence is available to everyone.  I'm not going to summarize climate change for you.  And for two specific reasons: 

First, I don't know what group you're in.  Group 1, you want me to demonstrate that the earth is warming?  No thanks.  Group 2, you want me to provide evidence that global warming is anthropogenic?  Again, ....read.  There are countless books, peer-reviewed scientific journals, articles, videos, periodicals, etc. that are available to everyone.  It's 2020.  Google it.  Type "Climate Change" in to Amazon and order a few books.  Start with this one:  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1612198023?pf_rd_r=9M7GK2BS4CGF80WE05JP&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee.  Also search for references and literature within the DoD.  There's tons available.  The Navy, Marines, and the Joint Staff are full up on this while the AF in particular is lagging.  

Some might say that me not laying out the evidence is a cop-out.  That's fine.  Teach me how algebra works.  Teach me meteorology.  Or chemistry.  On an internet forum.  Present evidence, or else it's just "religion." 

If a flat-earther asks you to present evidence that the earth is in-fact spherical, where do you even begin?

Second, I don't have any confidence that it would matter.  You've made up your mind, ...and you know it.  You think the models are based on 'assumption.'  Specifically, you don't think ice core samples are valid, and therefore the main way we derive data dating back to 800,000 yrs is all invalid.  That's fine.  But you can see why if that's your starting place, it would be a waste of my time to engage and try to prove otherwise.

What I will do is to again reiterate that time will serve as the vindicator.  (*Although I don't know how old you are.  If you're in your 60's or 70's, you'll go to your grave never knowing you were wrong.  If you're under 40, and live to US expectancy, my point stands.) 

See, in you're mind, AGW is wrong, faulty, etc.  And under that logic, surely, there will be a time in the not-so-distant future where mankind will discover that all the science and evidence was mistaken.  "Oopps!  I guess it's just cyclical and 'the earth is gonna earth.'"  <sigh>  Or better yet, it will be reveled that it was a lie perpetuated by nefarious actors in order to tax people.  Well, again, I've got news for you.  It's neither.  And I encourage you, every 5-10 years, to ask if your ideas on AGW have been shown to be true, or whether AGW is still at the forefront of our discussions on energy, national security, food/water scarcity, migration, etc.  Spoiler alert......it's real.

 

1) I never said we were capable of the "impossible."  As far as claiming to be a superpower with global influence, I don't think it's a claim, I think that's a fact, no?  As for how long will it last?  No idea.  .....A very short time if we decide "fvck it," and give up.

2) Don't know.  I assume significant changes to the US electrical power grid would be gradual.  Phased in?  With redundancies and back-ups?  To mitigate risk?  I'm truly not sure what you're getting at.  

3)  We don't.  We can cede the leadership role.  And if the current course continues, we will, in our lifetime.  To China.  I admit I was raised with a post-war American mindset......I harbor ideas about American exceptionalism and the idea that America "is not just one more indistinguishable entity on the world stage, but that the United States has been essential to the preservation and progress of freedom" and that we have a special role to play in that regard. 

Increasingly, we hear themes of isolationism these days.  I get it.  People are tired of endless wars and entanglement abroad.  Heavy lies the crown.  We can take the crown off, stretch our necks and enjoy the temporary relief, but I'm not so sure we'll like how it feels when another country picks it up and dons it.


4)  It won't be the end of life or humanity.  Granted, some book titles, news headlines, and politicians speak with that level of sensationalism to grab attention.  But few scientists think climate change will 'end humanity.' 

Also, very few people talk about 'reversing' climate change.  The discussion centers around slowing and/or mitigating.  But what will it look like?  I don't know.  Take for example India.  The Ganges river is glacial fed, and the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting at an unprecedented rate, giving the 500 million people in the basin below a false impression of the health of the river.  Meanwhile, all indications are that it's going to be monsoon-fed only by the turn of the century.  And they're already depleting the underground aquifers.  Where will those 500 million people go when there's no water?  People don't just sit around and wait to die of dehydration.  There will be mass migration across ethnic, tribal, religious, and state lines.  ....I'm betting there will be some fighting involved.  It won't be the end of humanity, but it'll be a mess.  Similarly, what happens when the Colorado river dries up?  Or when huge portions of Miami are under water?  It won't be the end of humanity.  It'll just suck.  For some more than others.

Wow, that's a lot of typing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

There are generally three types of climate deniers:  

Group 1)  "climate change is not happening."

Group 2) "Ok, climate change is happening, but it's not anthropogenic."

Group 3) "climate change is happening, and Ok, is anthropogenic, but...the effects will be minimal , and certainly not worth changing our way of life."

--Due to the overwhelming amount of evidence from multiple independent fields of study, Group 1 has thankfully shrunk and most in Group 1 have migrated to Group 2.  If someone is still Group 1 at this point, there's nothing you can do for them.  It's like chemtrailers or flat-earthers.  Evidence is irrelevant to them.  

--Group 2's popular mantra, echoed by BrickHistory, is (to paraphrase) "the earth goes through cycles.  Yes it's currently warming, but it has warmed in the past.  We've had ice ages.  We've even had periods in earth's history that are warmer than today.  Therefore, we can conclude that humans play no (or negligible) part in it."  This is the premier example of Dunning-Kreuger.  It's a cringeworthy reminder that most people with a strong denial of climate change have literally never bothered to do any research into it at all.  How do I know?  Because any scientific book, journal, debate, lecture, etc. on the subject will immediately frame the problem in terms of rate of change.  No credible scientist disputes that the earth has experienced large variations in climate.  The difference now is the rate.  It's faster.  That's the core assertion.  Change that used to take 10's or 100's of thousands of years is now occurring over centuries or decades.  

Let's say you mow your lawn once every other week.  The grass grows, you cut it.  Cyclical.  What sort of questions would you raise if you found yourself having to mow the grass every day.  Or every hour.  That's the difference.  Not simply that the grass grows and you have to cut it, but that the rate is freakishly fast, and accelerating.  So what would you do?  You'd try to figure out why.   ....did I use a different fertilizer?  More water?  Did I plant a new type of grass?  Is there something in/under the soil?  ....You get the point.  You would try to isolate the independent variable.  When it comes to climate change, there are indeed many natural factors that affect it (solar irradiance, axial tilt, etc.).  But those have always existed.  And they're measurable.  Again, with just a little research you will find that science can easily isolate the variables.  Those variables do have an effect, but they do not account for the massive increase in the current rate of climate change.  

Group 2ers parroting the "Earth goes through natural cycles" are like someone having a really strong opinion on how the KC--NE game will go tomorrow.  But as the conversation continues, it becomes clear they've never even heard of Patrick Mahomes or Bill Belichick.  They saw a meme, or overhead something they thought sounded clever on TV and want to present it as their own.  But they don't actually know anything about the two teams.  Or maybe even about football.  ....So you cringe, possibly roll your eyes, and go find someone else to talk to.

--Group 3ers concede to the overwhelming evidence, but try to minimalize it.  Their group is, in my experience, characterized by pessimism, apathy, and defeat.  As you've heard here, Group 3ers will say 'China and India are larger carbon emitters.'  Or that wind/solar/renewables are expensive and consume energy to build, thus negating the effort.  The mantra is essentially, "it's too difficult.....so fvck it."  Not the America I know.  We are the global leader, the superpower.  We have global influence.  Other countries do what we do.  At least for now.  If we would simply lead, others would follow.  Likewise, innovation is tough.  Maybe solar and wind aren't the end-all, be-all.  Or maybe not in their current form.  We have to experiment.  Risk failure.  We have to try.  There are dozens of proposed lines of effort out there....we don't need all of them to work.  But none will work if we just give up.  It's a complex problem, like say, landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.  We could embrace the challenge and see similar results as the space race -- leaps in technological advances, achievement of a common goal, etc.  Or we can say 'fvck it, it's too tough for us.  Let's let China or the EU figure it out.' 

For those of you in Group 1, 2, and 3, I will close with this:  Climate change is happening and is anthropogenic.  There is no question of that basic premise.  Donald Trump and Joe Biden and AOC and Nancy and Mitch will all come and go.  Even Al Gore will be gone one day.  But climate change will be with us for the rest of all our lives.  And our children's.  It's not going away, and I encourage you each year, or each decade to pause and ask: "Hmmm....is that pesky climate change thing over yet?  Did the scientists, who dedicate their lives to understanding this, collecting data and evidence in dozens of fields of study, all over the globe finally realize they were wrong this whole time and that the earth 'just goes through cycles?'  Did they finally give up and admit this was a leftist conspiracy and a hoax to drive a carbon tax?"  The answer will be No.  We can discuss, like ViperMan suggests, the validity of specific policies and proposals and the way forward -- that's where the debate needs to be.  But again, for the record, 100%, you will not see anthropogenic climate change just fade into a non-issue or revealed as some sort of elaborate hoax.  In your whole life.  Regardless of the petty noise and friction and squabbling on the internet, in the media, or even in the halls of congress.

The irony here is that everything you ascribe to skeptics is equally applicable to believers.

I'm not type 1, 2, or 3, I'm all of the above

Your lack of understanding of how research and science works is on display. The finality and confidence which supporters of the theory display is completely out of line with the tenuous nature of scientific inquiry. But for fun, let's hit all three.

Type 1:

The Earth is only warming (by the amounts claimed) if you take every or any form of measurement and apply specific, subjective adjustments to the recorded data. If you take the most accurate and consistent measurement source, satellite data, you'll see very little warming at all, not at all in accordance with the models or headlines.

 

This happens to be the case with *every* temperature data set. Every single one is adjusted in the same way. Older temperature are lowered, newer temperatures are raised. 

 

Type 2:

I've already gone over the weaknesses of the theory of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Much weaker as a supposition than arguing the temps are rising, which is why type 2 is so common.

 

Type 3:

Valid. Concern. But I like to ask a hypothetical to reset the baseline. If we found out next year that global warming is 100% real, it's happening at the rates advertised, and the forecasted effects will all come to pass, *but* we also discover definitively that it is completely natural and uninfluenced by humans, do we try to stop it? Do we fight against nature? To a number, every environmentalist and supporter I've asked has said no.

So if it's ok for natural global warming, why does man made warming suddenly become a problem?

 

All three types have valid complaints. And everyone someone comes in preaching about the science (which most haven't read), they have never spent any meaningful amount of time researching the opposition. High profile scientists have been run out of the sector for low levels of dissent. That's not science, it's religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

The evidence is available to everyone.  I'm not going to summarize climate change for you.  And for two specific reasons: 

First, I don't know what group you're in.  Group 1, you want me to demonstrate that the earth is warming?  No thanks.  Group 2, you want me to provide evidence that global warming is anthropogenic?  Again, ....read.  There are countless books, peer-reviewed scientific journals, articles, videos, periodicals, etc. that are available to everyone.  It's 2020.  Google it.  Type "Climate Change" in to Amazon and order a few books.  Start with this one:  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1612198023?pf_rd_r=9M7GK2BS4CGF80WE05JP&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee.  Also search for references and literature within the DoD.  There's tons available.  The Navy, Marines, and the Joint Staff are full up on this while the AF in particular is lagging.  

Some might say that me not laying out the evidence is a cop-out.  That's fine.  Teach me how algebra works.  Teach me meteorology.  Or chemistry.  On an internet forum.  Present evidence, or else it's just "religion." 

If a flat-earther asks you to present evidence that the earth is in-fact spherical, where do you even begin?

Second, I don't have any confidence that it would matter.  You've made up your mind, ...and you know it.  You think the models are based on 'assumption.'  Specifically, you don't think ice core samples are valid, and therefore the main way we derive data dating back to 800,000 yrs is all invalid.  That's fine.  But you can see why if that's your starting place, it would be a waste of my time to engage and try to prove otherwise.

What I will do is to again reiterate that time will serve as the vindicator.  (*Although I don't know how old you are.  If you're in your 60's or 70's, you'll go to your grave never knowing you were wrong.  If you're under 40, and live to US expectancy, my point stands.) 

See, in you're mind, AGW is wrong, faulty, etc.  And under that logic, surely, there will be a time in the not-so-distant future where mankind will discover that all the science and evidence was mistaken.  "Oopps!  I guess it's just cyclical and 'the earth is gonna earth.'"  <sigh>  Or better yet, it will be reveled that it was a lie perpetuated by nefarious actors in order to tax people.  Well, again, I've got news for you.  It's neither.  And I encourage you, every 5-10 years, to ask if your ideas on AGW have been shown to be true, or whether AGW is still at the forefront of our discussions on energy, national security, food/water scarcity, migration, etc.  Spoiler alert......it's real.

 

1) I never said we were capable of the "impossible."  As far as claiming to be a superpower with global influence, I don't think it's a claim, I think that's a fact, no?  As for how long will it last?  No idea.  .....A very short time if we decide "fvck it," and give up.

2) Don't know.  I assume significant changes to the US electrical power grid would be gradual.  Phased in?  With redundancies and back-ups?  To mitigate risk?  I'm truly not sure what you're getting at.  

3)  We don't.  We can cede the leadership role.  And if the current course continues, we will, in our lifetime.  To China.  I admit I was raised with a post-war American mindset......I harbor ideas about American exceptionalism and the idea that America "is not just one more indistinguishable entity on the world stage, but that the United States has been essential to the preservation and progress of freedom" and that we have a special role to play in that regard. 

Increasingly, we hear themes of isolationism these days.  I get it.  People are tired of endless wars and entanglement abroad.  Heavy lies the crown.  We can take the crown off, stretch our necks and enjoy the temporary relief, but I'm not so sure we'll like how it feels when another country picks it up and dons it.


4)  It won't be the end of life or humanity.  Granted, some book titles, news headlines, and politicians speak with that level of sensationalism to grab attention.  But few scientists think climate change will 'end humanity.' 

Also, very few people talk about 'reversing' climate change.  The discussion centers around slowing and/or mitigating.  But what will it look like?  I don't know.  Take for example India.  The Ganges river is glacial fed, and the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting at an unprecedented rate, giving the 500 million people in the basin below a false impression of the health of the river.  Meanwhile, all indications are that it's going to be monsoon-fed only by the turn of the century.  And they're already depleting the underground aquifers.  Where will those 500 million people go when there's no water?  People don't just sit around and wait to die of dehydration.  There will be mass migration across ethnic, tribal, religious, and state lines.  ....I'm betting there will be some fighting involved.  It won't be the end of humanity, but it'll be a mess.  Similarly, what happens when the Colorado river dries up?  Or when huge portions of Miami are under water?  It won't be the end of humanity.  It'll just suck.  For some more than others.

Copy, there are heretics, agnostics, and atheists at odds with your religion. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

There are generally three types of climate deniers:  

Group 1)  "climate change is not happening."

Group 2) "Ok, climate change is happening, but it's not anthropogenic."

Group 3) "climate change is happening, and Ok, is anthropogenic, but...the effects will be minimal , and certainly not worth changing our way of life."

and then a lot of other words...

 

Again, looking at the same data, both historical and projected, reasonable people can come to different conclusions.

But not by you and others that are true believers.  Instead, you want to impose your beliefs and will upon others because...they're wrong.  Almost a faith in your own intellect that can't seem to consider others also use their intellect.  Sounds faith-like to me...

 

Ok, then forego anything related to fossil fuels, modern conveniences that utilize the electric grid and, ultimately, more of those fossil fuels.  Until then, I can only believe that your conviction in your facts is superficial.

We, the US, give away billions to...whom?  Who gets the money?  Do others also have to modify their behavior?

And, given your rationale, what if you are wrong?

 

I believe the earth doesn't give two craps about any species, us included.  Earth's gonna earth until the sun swells up and consumes it in some billions of years.  Until then, I'm gonna go drive my giant F-150 V8.  Wanna ride?

 

So endth the sermon.

 

Seems there are other heretics on here as well.  Must we all burn?  Or does that contribute too many global warming gases?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people arguing we need to do something about global climate change would have more credibility if they were open to other options (such as technological solutions like Viperman mentioned) but they insist the ONLY option is turning the U.S. into North Korea/Stalinist Russia.  Me thinks the objective isn't mitigating climate change but rather it's political power...  

At any rate, unless you get China and India onboard, anything we do is futile. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people arguing we need to do something about global climate change would have more credibility if they were open to other options (such as technological solutions like Viperman mentioned) but they insist the ONLY option is turning the U.S. into North Korea/Stalinist Russia.  Me thinks the objective isn't mitigating climate change but rather it's political power...  
At any rate, unless you get China and India onboard, anything we do is futile. 

So I'm curious what slippery slope took you to "North Korea/Stalinist Russia". These conversations are incredibly beneficial until some falls prey to emotion and hyperbole. Plenty of guilt on both sides...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...