Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Paris Climate Disagreement

The Paris Climate Disagreement (Page 6)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 09:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
^^ As if you (and 90% of the other people on `NN) are a model for either? Of course, your idea of "respect" is that someone agrees with you entirely, as you've already demonstrated in this very thread, multiple times.

You are welcome to keep on doing what you have been doing the way you have been doing it, just don't act surprised when you get the same result next time, and the time after that.

When it comes to climate change there is no agreeing with me or not. This is not a matter of opinion like issues such as abortion or the economy are. The facts are the facts regardless of what I think, what you think, or what anybody thinks. You would be in better standing trying to parade your expertise among engineers and scientists if you dropped the climate change denier schtick, and welcome the facts.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You are welcome to keep on doing what you have been doing the way you have been doing it, just don't act surprised when you get the same result next time, and the time after that.
I will, I just won't bother with his (or your) replies. Save your breath (or fingers, ATCMB).
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 01:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
When it comes to climate change there is no agreeing with me or not. This is not a matter of opinion like issues such as abortion or the economy are. The facts are the facts regardless of what I think, what you think, or what anybody thinks.
1) Skepticism is a fundamental part of science.
2) Science does in fact get things wrong at times. The history of science is getting things wrong. Hence the importance of #1.
3) Peer review, and academia in general, aren't quite the unimpeachable institutions people make them out to be.
4) Environmentalists (distinct from climatologists, though some are no doubt both) have a well established record of being batshit, doomsday cultists.

The thing is, I'm guessing I take little issue with the fundamental science involved, but considering the above points, I question the value of a strategy which demands submission to dogma. This is off-putting to me, and I pretty much agree. I can only imagine it's worse for someone more skeptical, or who has reasons (legitimate or otherwise) to lack trust.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 02:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
1) Skepticism is a fundamental part of science.
2) Science does in fact get things wrong at times. The history of science is getting things wrong. Hence the importance of #1.
3) Peer review, and academia in general, aren't quite the unimpeachable institutions people make them out to be.
4) Environmentalists (distinct from climatologists, though some are no doubt both) have a well established record of being batshit, doomsday cultists.

The thing is, I'm guessing I take little issue with the fundamental science involved, but considering the above points, I question the value of a strategy which demands submission to dogma. This is off-putting to me, and I pretty much agree. I can only imagine it's worse for someone more skeptical, or who has reasons (legitimate or otherwise) to lack trust.

Skepticism is healthy and encouraged in science, but up to a point. These scientific conclusions were reached a long time ago. There has been a massive amount of peer review. Yes, peer review in and of itself isn't unimpeachable, but at this quantity if you can't trust the results, what scientific conclusions can you trust?

After a point doesn't skepticism just because ignorance? There are people that are skeptical that the world is older than 6000 years. You might say this is their opinion and we should respect that, but at what point do we say "no, **** that" and not give their stupid ass ignorant feelings as much weight and attention as the actual facts?

As far as the track record of environmentalists, that is probably where the climate change deniers are getting hung up on. However, the shortcomings of individuals, their passions, and their flaws should not be conflated with the massive amounts of data and conclusions from this data that have been reached.

I'm not directing this at you because I think you disagree, but because I think you are being too nice to the deniers. At what point do you think it is right to tell them to **** off and get with the program? I mean, geeesh, hasn't it been long enough already? You are clearly a far more patient man than me. At what point does your patience leave you?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 04:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
1) Skepticism is a fundamental part of science.
You mistake how skepticism in science is put into practice: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is a reason why the scientific community overwhelmingly believes in global climate change: it is what their data and their models consistently and reliably says. Skepticism is applied to people who produce research that contradicts this overwhelming body of evidence. If it weren't so serious, I'd find it mildly amusing how wannabe scientists re-discovered issues that scientists had long thought about and resolved (e. g. heat islands).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
2) Science does in fact get things wrong at times. The history of science is getting things wrong. Hence the importance of #1.
The scientific consensus does not change on a whim as you suggest. New facts need to be uncovered that contradict earlier results, and then a lot of skepticism (see #1) is applied until the body of evidence for the new hypothesis is more convincing than the old one. The fundamental mechanism of global climate change was uncovered in the late 1800s by Arrhenius, and is extremely easy to understand. Therefore we have >100 years worth of evidence investigating all aspects of this issue.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
3) Peer review, and academia in general, aren't quite the unimpeachable institutions people make them out to be.
This is a very general and vague statement. What do you mean by this? I have to deal with peer review regularly, including its shortcomings (it's a system run by people), but what problems are particularly relevant for research on global climate change.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
4) Environmentalists (distinct from climatologists, though some are no doubt both) have a well established record of being batshit, doomsday cultists.
Nothing environmentalists do changes the scientific facts on the ground. Scientists should do a better job communicating their results to the public and not leave that to people who aren't experts to translate research into English. But keep in mind that they aren't hired for that (I don't have any allotted time for outreach to non-scientists).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The thing is, I'm guessing I take little issue with the fundamental science involved, but considering the above points, I question the value of a strategy which demands submission to dogma. This is off-putting to me, and I pretty much agree.
Do you also think it is off-putting that gravity exists? Or that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer? Facts are the opposite of dogma and facts don't bend to our whims, we have to accept them as they are.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 10:07 AM
 
If you want to be skeptical of something in science it needs to be because you think something is wrong somewhere. Faulty logical reasoning, bad experimental practices, inconsistencies in the data, poorly explained outlying results, or some kind of corruption or bias among those involved. Some of these are matters of opinion, most require some sort of evidence.

The skepticism against climate change is not real skepticism. Its born from the inconvenience. The people against it don't want to change their behaviour or lifestyle because it will cost them time, effort, money, or they will have to give up something they enjoy. Like a collection of gas guzzling muscle cars for example.
Because most of these people are involved in fossil fuels, or related big business, they seem to fall largely on one side of the party line so it then becomes a partisan issue. Monkey see, monkey do.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 11:12 AM
 
@ alia,

The science I'm discussing here is psychology.

Skepticism is fundamental to science, so "you're doing skepticism wrong" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

The incomplete nature of knowledge is fundamental to science, so considering the proper language to describe it is "theory", even with the most well understood aspects, browbeating about the "facts" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

Basing an argument on how a flawed system has happened to operate with effective flawlessness in this particular instance (which it must have for these claims to be true "facts") is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

Failing to acknowledge environmentalists have poisoned the discussion, and have cut their own swath of devastation based on poor reasoning is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.


None of these points have to do with the objective accuracy of the argument. A claim such as "that's not how scientific skepticism works" is missing the point.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@ alia,

The science I'm discussing here is psychology.

Skepticism is fundamental to science, so "you're doing skepticism wrong" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

The incomplete nature of knowledge is fundamental to science, so considering the proper language to describe it is "theory", even with the most well understood aspects, browbeating about the "facts" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

Basing an argument on how a flawed system has happened to operate with effective flawlessness in this particular instance (which it must have for these claims to be true "facts") is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.

Failing to acknowledge environmentalists have poisoned the discussion, and have cut their own swath of devastation based on poor reasoning is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.


None of these points have to do with the objective accuracy of the argument. A claim such as "that's not how scientific skepticism works" is missing the point.


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but going off of what I think I understand, global warming has transitioned from a theory to established un-debatable fact. At this point, it doesn't need to sell itself.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but going off of what I think I understand, global warming has transitioned from a theory to established un-debatable fact. At this point, it doesn't need to sell itself.
I'm making two separate points.

1) Convincing an opponent is an exercise in salesmanship.

2) The proper academic term for what we are talking about is "theory". This means something else than the commonly accepted term. This makes the salesmanship exercise more difficult, and ignoring it puts the sale in jeopardy, just as ignoring all my other points does.


Being right doesn't mean jack shit if you don't close the deal. Covfefe is for closers.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm making two separate points.

1) Convincing an opponent is an exercise in salesmanship.

2) The proper academic term for what we are talking about is "theory". This means something else than the commonly accepted term. This makes the salesmanship exercise more difficult, and ignoring it puts the sale in jeopardy, just as ignoring all my other points does.


Being right doesn't mean jack necromancy if you don't close the deal. Covfefe is for closers.

I see...

Well, maybe I'm not trying to be a salesman at this point, as this seems like a wasted effort. What I'm doing instead is leading the horse to the water. Over, and over, and over again, hoping eventually the water will be drunk, but I'm not trying to sell the water, I'm just leading the horse there.

In case you didn't get the nuances of this brilliant metaphor, Badkosh, Chongo, and CTP are the horses here.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 01:22 PM
 
I'm stealing "jack necromancy".
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm stealing "jack necromancy".

If I get more sass mouth from you I will make you a horse too. You've been warned.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 07:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The science I'm discussing here is psychology.
You are pivoting here. No, the science we are discussing here is climate science. For otherwise, what does “skepticism in psychology” have to do with global climate change.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Skepticism is fundamental to science, so "you're doing skepticism wrong" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.
Now you are pivoting from making scientific findings to communicating said findings to ordinary people. These are two distinct things. In our age there is certainly a need for better communication of scientific advances in understanding to people, but again, this has nothing to do with the findings of fact. However, if people opt to believe in conspiracy theories (“Scientists are in it for the money, they fake data to get grants!”), no amount of communication and patient explaining helps. Moreover, scientists are discouraged by their training to “sell” their results, it's considered bad practice as you have to overemphasize your own contributions and exaggerate.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The incomplete nature of knowledge is fundamental to science, so considering the proper language to describe it is "theory", even with the most well understood aspects, browbeating about the "facts" is, from a psychological standpoint, a bad sell.
The “it's just a theory trope” is a means used by detractors of climate science, not by climate scientists themselves. Keep in mind, wide-spread skepticism towards the global consensus of climate change is a purely American thing (amongst first-world countries). Psychologists also know that people who opt to believe something else get even more entrenched in their beliefs if they are confronted with facts that refute those beliefs. We need to educate people in their scientific literacy, how to parse scientific claims and understand the validity.

The way you write your posts indicates you aren't really convinced of the scientific consensus (e. g. you criticize the lack of skepticism in the scientific community and point out that “science gets it wrong at times”), and that makes your pivot towards scientists not “selling” their results properly quite disingenuous. For otherwise you'd have structured your argument completely differently.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 08:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm making two separate points.

1) Convincing an opponent is an exercise in salesmanship.
Only when the opponent is being honest. Which they aren't. Most of these people are thinking "This science will lead to regulations that will cost me money to conform to", while saying "I don't think the science is conclusive."

Its the same problem you have in politics and its why everything is so partisan and its really hard to convince people of anything they don't already believe.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 08:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Only when the opponent is being honest. Which they aren't.
In general, the opponent is more honest then they are perceived to be.

That the other side can't believe it is one of the reasons there's so much partisanship.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
that makes your pivot towards scientists not “selling” their results properly quite disingenuous.
Cool story, bro.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You are pivoting here. No, the science we are discussing here is climate science. For otherwise, what does “skepticism in psychology” have to do with global climate change.

Now you are pivoting from making scientific findings to communicating said findings to ordinary people. These are two distinct things. In our age there is certainly a need for better communication of scientific advances in understanding to people, but again, this has nothing to do with the findings of fact. However, if people opt to believe in conspiracy theories (“Scientists are in it for the money, they fake data to get grants!”), no amount of communication and patient explaining helps. Moreover, scientists are discouraged by their training to “sell” their results, it's considered bad practice as you have to overemphasize your own contributions and exaggerate.

The “it's just a theory trope” is a means used by detractors of climate science, not by climate scientists themselves. Keep in mind, wide-spread skepticism towards the global consensus of climate change is a purely American thing (amongst first-world countries). Psychologists also know that people who opt to believe something else get even more entrenched in their beliefs if they are confronted with facts that refute those beliefs. We need to educate people in their scientific literacy, how to parse scientific claims and understand the validity.

The way you write your posts indicates you aren't really convinced of the scientific consensus (e. g. you criticize the lack of skepticism in the scientific community and point out that “science gets it wrong at times”), and that makes your pivot towards scientists not “selling” their results properly quite disingenuous. For otherwise you'd have structured your argument completely differently.
I was cranky when I first read this, so my response was less constructive than it should have been. My apologies.

Here is what occurred.

I made a point.
It did not convey the meaning I intended.
I clarified the point.

I am a very patient person, but if this basic a component of communication precipitates a tirade of accusations I argue in bad faith, I can say up front the frustration level of this "dialogue" will be well beyond my tolerances.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2017, 11:07 PM
 
I don't think my post classifies as a tirade, and I tried to substantiate what I wrote with examples. Your post came across as meandering and changing goal posts, from climate science to psychology and science communication. If this wasn't your intention, ok, but I have have to go off of what you write. Being cranky (which doesn't faze me) doesn't help the atmosphere either.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 04:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think my post classifies as a tirade, and I tried to substantiate what I wrote with examples. Your post came across as meandering and changing goal posts, from climate science to psychology and science communication. If this wasn't your intention, ok, but I have have to go off of what you write. Being cranky (which doesn't faze me) doesn't help the atmosphere either.
Hence my apology for being cranky.

I operate under the assumption miscommunication is difficult to avoid even under the best of circumstances, let alone in the imperfect medium of internet forum posts.

For whatever reason, on more than one occasion, when we've had a miscommunication, the immediate result has been accusations I'm arguing in bad faith.

If even when miscommunication is to be expected, your default assumption of me is I argue in bad faith, it's hard to interpret it as anything other than your opinion of me is quite low.

This triggers any number of emotions, but since I respect you very much, it chiefly makes me feel like a shitty person. Regardless of whether this is the intent, it is difficult for me to respond other than defensively.


The point I was making about psychology wasn't directed at scientists, it was directed at the random internet schmoes reading it.

So, one scientist.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 06:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I operate under the assumption miscommunication is difficult to avoid even under the best of circumstances, let alone in the imperfect medium of internet forum posts.
Honestly, I'm having a very hard time figuring out what your train of thought is and what your arguments actually are. Perhaps this is the way your brain operates (not judging here), but when I'm discussing with someone with your posting style, it really does come across to me as disingenuous, as trying to move the goal posts and pivoting — whether that is your intention or not.

Put yourself in my shoes: I've spent quite a bit of effort, responding to each of your points in a respectful tone (the last paragraph that you quoted excluded), and you respond with a blanket answer to not just me, but also a few others, and instead of discussing the points you bring up another topic that wasn't part of your previous arguments. And I feel no smarter than before when it comes to what your actual opinion is.

In case of global climate change, I still don't know whether it is “I'm skeptical about the whole thing, I don't think the science is clear (plus, scientists do a shitty job).” or “It's completely obvious that humans contribute in a major way to climate change, I just wish scientists would go about communicating their results in a better way.” on the other end of the spectrum. Even trying to provoke a clear reaction (which perhaps isn't good for civility in discourse) did not work. That's kinda sad. And that doesn't mean you need to agree with me: when BadKosh wrote that he believes climate scientists forge data to make it appear there is climate change, I understood what his opinion was and that it'd be waste of time to discuss with him further. If I believed you were arguing in bad faith or held to your beliefs so strongly that no matter the argument, you wouldn't change them, I'd stop arguing (for my sake and yours).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
For whatever reason, on more than one occasion, when we've had a miscommunication, the immediate result has been accusations I'm arguing in bad faith.

If even when miscommunication is to be expected, your default assumption of me is I argue in bad faith, it's hard to interpret it as anything other than your opinion of me is quite low.
No, I don't think it is my default assumption, I've spent quite a few long posts going back and forth with you. And when I wrote that what you posted indicated ... still left the door open for you to clearly say “No, actually, this is my opinion …”

Perhaps it is harder for you to wrap your head around the topic and get the point across that you wanted to bring across. And I'm not being as patient as I should be. But at least from my side, there is no bad faith here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 01:40 PM
 
Then first off let me (honestly) apologize for any effort you felt you had wasted.

As odd as this may sound, I had no idea you were actually interested in my opinion.

I'll preface by saying I've generally stayed out of this argument, so my opinions are rather broad.

I think dumping shit into the atmosphere isn't a good thing.
I think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and adding greenhouse gasses will have the effect the name implies.
I think climatologists likely get a good portion of the climate science right, but getting useful predictions out of a climate model involves populating it with macroeconomic data of how the world will react to changing fossil fuel market... something which, with all due respect to the climatologists, they're delusional if they think they know jack shit. Economists can't even figure this out.
Humans are exceedingly adaptable and innovative.
The actual apocalypse scenarios (flatline the oceans, runaway greenhouse) are exceedingly unlikely.

The sum of this? Yes it's a thing, but everybody needs to take a chill.


Full disclosure: opinion of person who lives not on an ocean in a wealthy, first-world country.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think climatologists likely get a good portion of the climate science right, but getting useful predictions out of a climate model involves populating it with macroeconomic data of how the world will react to changing fossil fuel market... something which, with all due respect to the climatologists, they're delusional if they think they know jack shit. Economists can't even figure this out.
Humans are exceedingly adaptable and innovative.
The actual apocalypse scenarios (flatline the oceans, runaway greenhouse) are exceedingly unlikely.

The sum of this? Yes it's a thing, but everybody needs to take a chill.

I still don't understand what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that fossil fuel consumption will reduce as prices reach a certain point and therefore we can't predict the net effect of this reduction?

I think you guys are getting too hung up on this prediction business.

I'm certainly not an expert here at all, but the little exposure I've had to these studies is all about what will happen if our current trends continue, not trying to predict future human behavior. Why do we need to predict future human behavior when we have plenty of data about historical human behavior? We've had a decade or more of trying to change human behavior in the absence of really aggressive political policy, and it has made little difference. Are you confident that this will change on its own?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 02:02 PM
 
Instead of relying on human ingenuity to rebuild when the world combusts/floods/vaporizes, I'd rather rely on human ingenuity to prevent the world from combusting/etc.

Humans may have a tendency to persevere, but they are also stubborn and lazy. There is a certain % of the population who see a flood coming and stay in their house, either denying that the flood exists, or praying god will save them, or just because it's their house and no one is going to make them leave.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As odd as this may sound, I had no idea you were actually interested in my opinion.

I'll preface by saying I've generally stayed out of this argument, so my opinions are rather broad.

I think dumping shit into the atmosphere isn't a good thing.
I think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and adding greenhouse gasses will have the effect the name implies.
I think climatologists likely get a good portion of the climate science right, but getting useful predictions out of a climate model involves populating it with macroeconomic data of how the world will react to changing fossil fuel market... something which, with all due respect to the climatologists, they're delusional if they think they know jack shit. Economists can't even figure this out.
Humans are exceedingly adaptable and innovative.
The actual apocalypse scenarios (flatline the oceans, runaway greenhouse) are exceedingly unlikely.

The sum of this? Yes it's a thing, but everybody needs to take a chill.
Our views are almost identical, interestingly. Yes, climate change is a thing, I even believe mankind is making it worse, but currently, I don't feel we can change its course in any substantive way. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it, however, and nor does that mean we shouldn't try our best to fix what we can.

As Dr. Lee Riedinger, the director of Univ of TN's Bredesen Center told me (somewhat paraphrasing here): "Humans innovate when we're forced to adapt, usually not from sitting around at our leisure, picking at a problem. We're inherently lazy and love to procrastinate, so conflating something to make it appear like a disaster is often the only way to get something done."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I still don't understand what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that fossil fuel consumption will reduce as prices reach a certain point and therefore we can't predict the net effect of this reduction?

I think you guys are getting too hung up on this prediction business.

I'm certainly not an expert here at all, but the little exposure I've had to these studies is all about what will happen if our current trends continue, not trying to predict future human behavior. Why do we need to predict future human behavior when we have plenty of data about historical human behavior? We've had a decade or more of trying to change human behavior in the absence of really aggressive political policy, and it has made little difference. Are you confident that this will change on its own?
I consider the assumption current trends will continue to be incorrect, and is thus populating the model with bad data.

Before we're even halfway into most of the models we're working with, the auto industry will have been utterly transformed by EV and self-driving vehicles. Current trends show a gradual decline. What will actually happen is more akin to driving off a cliff.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 02:31 PM
 
The side of this issue that so many on the right somehow fail to grasp is that the rest of the world, rightly or wrongly, believes in anthropogenic climate change and are building the industries and the jobs to do something about it. While the republicans are saving coal jobs that don't exist, the rest of the world is creating relevant jobs focused on green energy.

The UK and Russia seem to be the only other major economies happy to (for the most part) give these jobs to others.

US conservatives seem to be very happy to preserve an economy based on Conestoga wagons while the rest of the world is building, selling and buying cars.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
The side of this issue that so many on the right somehow fail to grasp is that the rest of the world, rightly or wrongly, believes in anthropogenic climate change and are building the industries and the jobs to do something about it. While the republicans are saving coal jobs that don't exist, the rest of the world is creating relevant jobs focused on green energy.

The UK and Russia seem to be the only other major economies happy to (for the most part) give these jobs to others.

US conservatives seem to be very happy to preserve an economy based on Conestoga wagons while the rest of the world is building, selling and buying cars.
My position is to let coal die "naturally".

I don't believe in artificially propping it up because I don't believe in protectionism.

I don't believe in artificially tearing it down because I don't believe in government interference.

In any event, I don't believe the short, remaining lifespan of American coal will have much of an effect on the overall global warming picture. As far as that argument goes, American coal is dead for all intents and purposes.

Oil is an entirely different situation.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 02:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Instead of relying on human ingenuity to rebuild when the world combusts/floods/vaporizes, I'd rather rely on human ingenuity to prevent the world from combusting/etc.

Humans may have a tendency to persevere, but they are also stubborn and lazy. There is a certain % of the population who see a flood coming and stay in their house, either denying that the flood exists, or praying god will save them, or just because it's their house and no one is going to make them leave.
This is a math problem.

In broad terms, we earn X by letting it ride. Fixing it costs Y. If X > Y, we end up ahead by fixing it later.





I'm going to repeat the "broad terms" qualification.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 03:04 PM
 
I don't see how there is earning. There is robbing peter to pay paul. There is playing the opportunity costs.

Case in point: noticing a leak in the bathroom tile. It would have been cheaper to fix several years ago, but it is now a major issue and much more expensive to fix. A stupid error that could have been avoided.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Then first off let me (honestly) apologize for any effort you felt you had wasted.

As odd as this may sound, I had no idea you were actually interested in my opinion.

I'll preface by saying I've generally stayed out of this argument, so my opinions are rather broad.

I think dumping shit into the atmosphere isn't a good thing.
I think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and adding greenhouse gasses will have the effect the name implies.
I think climatologists likely get a good portion of the climate science right, but getting useful predictions out of a climate model involves populating it with macroeconomic data of how the world will react to changing fossil fuel market... something which, with all due respect to the climatologists, they're delusional if they think they know jack shit. Economists can't even figure this out.
Humans are exceedingly adaptable and innovative.
The actual apocalypse scenarios (flatline the oceans, runaway greenhouse) are exceedingly unlikely.

The sum of this? Yes it's a thing, but everybody needs to take a chill.


Full disclosure: opinion of person who lives not on an ocean in a wealthy, first-world country.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Our views are almost identical, interestingly. Yes, climate change is a thing, I even believe mankind is making it worse, but currently, I don't feel we can change its course in any substantive way. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it, however, and nor does that mean we shouldn't try our best to fix what we can.

As Dr. Lee Riedinger, the director of Univ of TN's Bredesen Center told me (somewhat paraphrasing here): "Humans innovate when we're forced to adapt, usually not from sitting around at our leisure, picking at a problem. We're inherently lazy and love to procrastinate, so conflating something to make it appear like a disaster is often the only way to get something done."
That's the real question. Does human activity (carbon emissions/population) have a greater affect than those that predate humans like volcanic or solar activity.

For decades the Art Bells of the world were the talking about "Chem Trails" and speculating that they were being used to test biologicals on the masses. Recently the climate changists are making claims thay are being using to modify the weather.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I consider the assumption current trends will continue to be incorrect, and is thus populating the model with bad data.

Before we're even halfway into most of the models we're working with, the auto industry will have been utterly transformed by EV and self-driving vehicles. Current trends show a gradual decline. What will actually happen is more akin to driving off a cliff.
This sounds like you are getting into the realm of technological predictions and social/market behavior.

What is your beef with the scientific output again? The predictions made are based on current data and current trends without trying to predict future technological changes, and are therefore valid as they stand, no? We agree with the cause of these trends (man-made global warming) too, which I'm thankful for, which puts you miles ahead of many on the right including Chongo and Badkosh.

So how did we get here again? If you said that you think that technology will bring about fast change based on your predictions of how technologies will will progress we could have arrived here much quicker. I'm not as optimistic as you are, but this is a fair statement.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
That's the real question. Does human activity (carbon emissions/population) have a greater affect than those that predate humans like volcanic or solar activity.

For decades the Art Bells of the world were the talking about "Chem Trails" and speculating that they were being used to test biologicals on the masses. Recently the climate changists are making claims thay are being using to modify the weather.

60k+ peer reviewed articles.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 03:25 PM
 
Mmmhmmm.

( Last edited by Chongo; Jul 25, 2017 at 01:53 PM. )
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I don't see how there is earning. There is robbing peter to pay paul. There is playing the opportunity costs.

Case in point: noticing a leak in the bathroom tile. It would have been cheaper to fix several years ago, but it is now a major issue and much more expensive to fix. A stupid error that could have been avoided.
This is only the cost half of the equation.

From when the leak started until now, you've benefited from not expending resources on the problem. Unlike with cost, calculating this benefit is non-trivial.

It may still not work out in the case of the leak, but my overall point is there's more involved than just cost now minus cost then.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This sounds like you are getting into the realm of technological predictions and social/market behavior.

What is your beef with the scientific output again? The predictions made are based on current data and current trends without trying to predict future technological changes, and are therefore valid as they stand, no? We agree with the cause of these trends (man-made global warming) too, which I'm thankful for, which puts you miles ahead of many on the right including Chongo and Badkosh.

So how did we get here again? If you said that you think that technology will bring about fast change based on your predictions of how technologies will will progress we could have arrived here much quicker. I'm not as optimistic as you are, but this is a fair statement.
The way we got here is I have far more worthwhile and educated opinions on the dynamic which causes people to beat the shit out of each other in these types of threads than I do on global warming.

I don't have a particular beef with climate science. I imagine climatologists at least got the basics right. It's the hazy middle out of which policy pops out on the other side I have a beef with.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 05:00 PM
 
We haven't heard about the ozone hole for awhile. Is that beacause everyone figured out it was a scam created by DuPont because the patent on freon on was expiring?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2017, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
We haven't heard about the ozone hole for awhile. Is that beacause everyone figured out it was a scam created by DuPont because the patent on freon was expiring?
Because the Montreal Protocol treaties worked. CFC phaseout caused the Antarctic hole's size to peak in the early 2000s. It's decreased since, but it's erratic from year to year. Also, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have the more recent data.

Edit: historical ozone hole max size / minimum ozone graphs can be seen here. The effect peaked around 2000, and has been (very slowly) recovering since. Also, DuPont developed R-12 and closely related refrigerants in the 1930s. The patents ran out in the 1950s.
( Last edited by reader50; Jul 24, 2017 at 05:33 PM. )
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Mmmhmmm.


Do you believe in gravity?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 12:18 PM
 
The John Wayne commercial is pretty creepy, since he later died of lung cancer.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...01085942619100
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 12:33 PM
 
Well, he did do that Genghis Khan deal in a bomb crater.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
60k+ peer reviewed articles.
But what if those Peer's are on the take as well? Honesty is a rare commodity. Greed, not so much.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, he did do that Genghis Khan deal in a bomb crater.
Exactly. Horrid movie. saw about 20 minutes. Harder to watch than a Star Trek - Voyager episode.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
But what if those Peer's are on the take as well? Honesty is a rare commodity. Greed, not so much.

This argument is stupid for the reasons given.

Also, the plural of peer is not "peer's".
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Do you believe in gravity?
You don't belive over 100,000 doctors?
Do you believe in love?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The John Wayne commercial is pretty creepy, since he later died of lung cancer.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...01085942619100
Even creepier.

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This argument is stupid for the reasons given.
It's doubtful one could get that many people on the take.

Conspiracy 101: double the number of people in on it, quadruple the chances of being discovered.

That said, I've read peer reviewed stuff (astrophysics, not climatology) which was just plain wrong. They incorrectly imported a cited equation, so none of it past that point was correct.

I doubt they were on the take from Big Asteroid, but out of however many people this paper went through, it's clear not a single ****ing one of them actually checked the equations.

This says nothing about global warming, but I feel it says something about the justifiability of using peer review as a rhetorical baseball upside people's skulls.

Even if I believe the science in question is correct.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
We haven't heard about the ozone hole for awhile. Is that beacause everyone figured out it was a scam created by DuPont because the patent on freon on was expiring?


aah point number 45656.
refuted.

awaiting point number 45657...
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
As Dr. Lee Riedinger, the director of Univ of TN's Bredesen Center told me (somewhat paraphrasing here): "Humans innovate when we're forced to adapt, usually not from sitting around at our leisure, picking at a problem. We're inherently lazy and love to procrastinate, so conflating something to make it appear like a disaster is often the only way to get something done."
This

It's easy to get cross and wonder WHY humans only really respond when forced to.
300 years of rational science vs 20,000 years of basic monkey.

Whenever human behaviour doesn't make any sense I just remember... monkeys.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
This

It's easy to get cross and wonder WHY humans only really respond when forced to.
300 years of rational science vs 20,000 years of basic monkey.

Whenever human behaviour doesn't make any sense I just remember... monkeys.
But I also have to note it's an argument for pretending the problem is worse than it is.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
aah point number 45656.
refuted.

awaiting point number 45657...
I'm on point 1337, which is I pwnz joo!!!!!1!!!!!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:16 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,