I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[No Excuses]

about the level of discourse and honesty I've come to expect from the science crowd....kudos 

 

There is one side of the argument who has posted and linked verified, credible sources. The other has posted information from verified hacks. Honesty is for the birds right? 

[drtdrums]

This point has probably been made already, but my issue with most climate change nuts is not that they are saying that the climate is changing. It is, and always has been, and always will. Human interaction with the environment also has an effect, though the degree of the effect is debated among the non nutjobs.

My problem is that they will not castigate the nutty idiots who were predicting insane swings one way or the other decades ago. Pop climate science has been as wildly inaccurate as "creation science". The last generation of political climate ideologues were soundly embarrassed by reality when their predictions proved to be completely devoid of anything resembling accuracy, and I've yet to hear anyone say, "Yeah, those guys were idiots. Sorry about that."

There's some major boy who cried wolf mojo climate science needs to address, fair or not.

[PeterMP]

This point has probably been made already, but my issue with most climate change nuts is not that they are saying that the climate is changing. It is, and always has been, and always will. Human interaction with the environment also has an effect, though the degree of the effect is debated among the non nutjobs.

My problem is that they will not castigate the nutty idiots who were predicting insane swings one way or the other decades ago. Pop climate science has been as wildly inaccurate as "creation science". The last generation of political climate ideologues were soundly embarrassed by reality when their predictions proved to be completely devoid of anything resembling accuracy, and I've yet to hear anyone say, "Yeah, those guys were idiots. Sorry about that."

There's some major boy who cried wolf mojo climate science needs to address, fair or not.

 

Out of curiosity, can you name some names?

 

And I will point out, people don't apologize to the public for other people's actions (by and large) (and why should I apologize for something that somebody else said).

 

It isn't hard to find climate scientists that say they think the extremists are wrong, and even the IPCC is wrong, but that we should do something.

 

I remember a thread where a respected climate scientists was listed by somebody as "denier" for saying the IPCC was likely off by 1/3 with respect to the effect of CO2 on temperature.

 

But that person was even saying there would be significant affects and he favored acting to save his (born) grandchildren from having to deal with the consequences.

 

(I'll also point out with respect to another post that I didn't respond to that I never watched Gore's move, but I'm pretty sure that Gore NEVER said the Earth was going to become uninhabitable EVER (much less in a few years) because of human caused climate change.)

Edited August 16, 2014 by PeterMP

[drtdrums]

1. http://books.google.com/books?output=html_text&id=bFAEAAAAMBAJ&dq=%22By+1985%2C+air+pollution+will+have+reduced+the+amount+of+sunlight+reaching+earth+by+one+half%22&jtp=22

2. Michael Oppenheimer is still employed as a respected expert after his idiotic claims in Dead Heat.

3. Erlich's doozy: http://books.google.com/books?id=azwQStEZq-8C&pg=PA606&dq=%22even+money+that+England+will+not+exist+in+the+year+2000%22&hl=en&ei=DCQYTa_XBI-q8AaF1ZWLDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ

Just a cursory search. There are innumerable examples. I know there is a tendency to "yeah, but..." these guys and those like them, but heck YES it is the responsibility of the rational scientific community and academia to lay an unmitigated smack down on that type of stuff. In a perfect world, their careers would have been destroyed.

It very well may occur in peer review, but I've not seen it. I suspect that, much like in biblical scholarship (in which it is a huge problem), the idiots are not engaged because they do not subject themselves to peer review and academics consider them a waste of time.

The bad effects are compounded by the fact that academia is hidden from popular view while morons get a ton of traction via politics, documentaries, and popular mags/newspapers. There is as wide a gap between climate change politics and climate change science as there is between climate change science and climate change denying.

Edited August 16, 2014 by drtdrums

[alexey]

drtdrums,

Please complete this sentence:

Because some scientists have been wrong about some environmental issues in the past, that means current scientific consensus view about climate change is ......

[twa]

could you clarify EXACTLY what the current scientific consensus is????

I hear a lot of bantering, not enough specifics

[drtdrums]

drtdrums,

Please complete this sentence:

Because some scientists have been wrong about some environmental issues in the past, that means current scientific consensus view about climate change is ......

Do not misunderstand me. The past and current alarmist idiots are outside the consensus; my point is that they have more play in the mainstream BECAUSE the "consensus" (which is itself a wide range of conclusions) ignores them and/or considers them useful idiots.

I can't complete your phrase because the two things (the boys who cried wolf and the current "consensus" range) have no relation, and it is not my contention that they do. The problem is a credibility issue (see Oppenheimer, who is still very much active and widely accepted by the more leftward "consensus" types, though they disagree with him).

Most "deniers" I know believe climate change is the chicken little horsecrap that was fed to them in the 70s and 80s. This is, IMO, largely the fault of the climate change crowd. Yes, an education is needed, but it's not because they're stupid! It's because they've been told the messiah was coming on Friday and they woke up on Saturday. Now there's a new preacher in town, but they just think he sounds like the last guy.

Climate change happens. It will continue to happen. Eventually calmer heads will prevail and educate. I'm totally not concerned about this issue; I simply think that the calmer heads could make more progress if they torched the insanity within their ranks.

[drtdrums]

could you clarify EXACTLY what the current scientific consensus is????

I hear a lot of bantering, not enough specifics

There aren't specifics. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

Science is observation (NOT the conclusions based on that observation, for clarity). There's a range of data that's relatively consistent but not in lockstep. The range of conclusions based on that data, however, is massive. "Consensus" is a misleading term in science for several reasons, and that's one of 'em. Seriously, the consensus is "Climate change happens".

I know, right? Herpa Derp. There's disagreement within the consensus regarding how dire things are (most: "not sure, possibly really bad"), if man has an effect (general consensus, yes, but to a debatable degree), if man can do anything about it (most: "in theory, yes; in practice, no"), etc.

I have much bigger fish to fry. The modern medical paradigm, for instance, is an immediate concern to me. I'm less concerned for my nonexistent grandchildren's climate than their rapidly increasing chances of being fat, cancerous, and stupid.

[PeterMP]

1. http://books.google.com/books?output=html_text&id=bFAEAAAAMBAJ&dq=%22By+1985%2C+air+pollution+will+have+reduced+the+amount+of+sunlight+reaching+earth+by+one+half%22&jtp=22

2. Michael Oppenheimer is still employed as a respected expert after his idiotic claims in Dead Heat.

3. Erlich's doozy: http://books.google.com/books?id=azwQStEZq-8C&pg=PA606&dq=%22even+money+that+England+will+not+exist+in+the+year+2000%22&hl=en&ei=DCQYTa_XBI-q8AaF1ZWLDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ

Just a cursory search. There are innumerable examples. I know there is a tendency to "yeah, but..." these guys and those like them, but heck YES it is the responsibility of the rational scientific community and academia to lay an unmitigated smack down on that type of stuff. In a perfect world, their careers would have been destroyed.

It very well may occur in peer review, but I've not seen it. I suspect that, much like in biblical scholarship (in which it is a huge problem), the idiots are not engaged because they do not subject themselves to peer review and academics consider them a waste of time.

The bad effects are compounded by the fact that academia is hidden from popular view while morons get a ton of traction via politics, documentaries, and popular mags/newspapers. There is as wide a gap between climate change politics and climate change science as there is between climate change science and climate change denying.

 

I'll point out your first link says if we nothing is done, but we've done things.  There is no doubt our air is cleaner today because of actions that we took in the 70s and 80s.

 

In terms of the others, they have been engaged, and they were even engaged at the time:

 

"I doubt that greenhouse warming is a danger to the planet at geological time scales, as Mr. Oppenheimer and Mr. Boyle suggest. Why make such hyped-up claims? Isn't it enough that global warming (and the consequent rising of sea level) would be tragic for us humans? Isn't it enough that most of our large cities, situated at sea level (ports and harbors), would be flooded, and that masses of people and agricultural systems would have to move? This parochial focus is entirely appropriate and defensible."

 

That was  in the NYT in 1990 when the book was written and was written by Barry Commoner, who is credited with being one of the founders of environmental movement.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Commoner

 

Due to the nature of academics (e.g. tenure) and a general unwillingness for curcifying people for making mistakes (let's face it if we ostracized everybody in climate science that was wrong at one point in time, there would be no climate scientists), little is actually done in these cases, but they are certainly engaged.

Edited August 16, 2014 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

There aren't specifics. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

Science is observation (NOT the conclusions based on that observation, for clarity). There's a range of data that's relatively consistent but not in lockstep. The range of conclusions based on that data, however, is massive. "Consensus" is a misleading term in science for several reasons, and that's one of 'em. Seriously, the consensus is "Climate change happens".

I know, right? Herpa Derp. There's disagreement within the consensus regarding how dire things are (most: "not sure, possibly really bad"), if man has an effect (general consensus, yes, but to a debatable degree), if man can do anything about it (most: "in theory, yes; in practice, no"), etc.

I have much bigger fish to fry. The modern medical paradigm, for instance, is an immediate concern to me. I'm less concerned for my nonexistent grandchildren's climate than their rapidly increasing chances of being fat, cancerous, and stupid.

 

There is no reason to think the issue is an either or case (and in terms of cancer, there's really no doubt that we are doing much better at treating cancer so I'm not sure why that would be much of a concern at all (actually the only thing in that list that seems much of an issue to me is fat)).

 

Is there a reason we can't do both?

 

At a local level, there is a lack of consensus because the local climate models aren't that good.  It is difficult to predict that this river will see more rain fall and so there will be local flooding vs. this area is going to see less rain.

 

The consensus certainly is that temperatures are rising and participation pattern ARE changing and sea levels ARE changing and that IS having effects NOW.

Edited August 16, 2014 by PeterMP

[twa]

 

The consensus certainly is that temperatures are rising and participation pattern ARE changing and sea levels ARE changing and that IS having effects NOW.

 

when haven't they?

 

the east coast is sinking.....are we gonna prevent it?

[PeterMP]

when haven't they?

 

the east coast is sinking.....are we gonna prevent it?

 

There are things we can control and contribute to and there are things that we cannot.

 

I doubt we can do much about the historical rate of the East coast sinking without ticking off much of the rest of the world (including Canada), but we can contribute more to the East Coast sinking (as ice sheets melt) and the effects of the east coast sinking (rising sea levels).

 

Generally, this argument doesn't really make any sense in general.  There are ALWAYS things we can't do anything about.

 

Are those things an argument to do nothing at all?

 

Why don't we just look at all of the things we can do nothing about and stay in bed?

[twa]

There are things we can control and contribute to and there are things that we cannot.

 

 

 

certainly,and not wasting billions that are better spent adapting is something we can control.

 

the question becomes is it a waste.....certainly no consensus there

[Larry]

when haven't they?

 

the east coast is sinking.....are we gonna prevent it?

 

Comets hitting the Earth is natural.  Therefore we should be intentionally steering them this way. 

 

Cancer is natural.  Therefore we should oppose all efforts to reduce smoking. 

 

I mean, as long as we're arguing that "we can't stop Nature, therefore we should continue artificially altering it", and all. 

certainly,and not wasting billions that are better spent adapting is something we can control.

oooh, now, there's an even better one:

"We shouldn't stop, or even slow down, dumping billions of tons of industrial waste into the atmosphere. We should be figuring out how to make the NYC subway system air tight, so it can still work, when it's under water."

[alexey]

...

I can't complete your phrase because the two things (the boys who cried wolf and the current "consensus" range) have no relation, and it is not my contention that they do. The problem is a credibility issue (see Oppenheimer, who is still very much active and widely accepted by the more leftward "consensus" types, though they disagree with him).

Most "deniers" I know believe climate change is the chicken little horsecrap that was fed to them in the 70s and 80s. This is, IMO, largely the fault of the climate change crowd. Yes, an education is needed, but it's not because they're stupid! It's because they've been told the messiah was coming on Friday and they woke up on Saturday. Now there's a new preacher in town, but they just think he sounds like the last guy.

...

You are saying that there is no connection, climate change deniers make the connection... but it's not their fault.

Do you at least admit that they are making a mistake? Sounds like you do.

I am not into blaming other people for your own mistakes. Climate change deniers are making a mistake, and blaming some crazies from the 70's for it. Do you see anything wrong with that picture?

Edited August 16, 2014 by alexey

[PeterMP]

certainly,and not wasting billions that are better spent adapting is something we can control.

 

the question becomes is it a waste.....certainly no consensus there

 

And as I've already stated in this thread, if the parties this thread is about, where actually discussing mitigation approaches, the conversation on climate change would be different.

[GhostofSparta]

"We should be figuring out how to make the NYC subway system air tight, so it can still work, when it's under water."

 

Welcome to Rapture!

[twa]

 

Comets hitting the Earth is natural.  Therefore we should be intentionally steering them this way. 

 

Cancer is natural.  Therefore we should oppose all efforts to reduce smoking. 

 

I mean, as long as we're arguing that "we can't stop Nature, therefore we should continue artificially altering it", and all. 

oooh, now, there's an even better one:

"We shouldn't stop, or even slow down, dumping billions of tons of industrial waste into the atmosphere. We should be figuring out how to make the NYC subway system air tight, so it can still work, when it's under water."

 

 

what do you consider altering nature?

how long will humanity survive w/o altering nature?

 

NYC is going underwater unless ya alter nature ...... or do you deny science?

[twa]

And as I've already stated in this thread, if the parties this thread is about, where actually discussing mitigation approaches, the conversation on climate change would be different.

 

The conversation is simply a vehicle used by those discussing mitigation strategy to steer it....same as any other political horse****.

 

be careful the spittle don't get on ya  

[MEANDWARF]

Welcome to Rapture!

 

 

This looks like where Jar Jar Binks lived?

[GhostofSparta]

This looks like where Jar Jar Binks lived?

Rapture is the setting of the Bioshock games (at least the first 2). Basically, an Ayn Randian Atlantis.

[MEANDWARF]

Rapture is the setting of the Bioshock games (at least the first 2). Basically, an Ayn Randian Atlantis.

Yeah, my son told me. FYI, he did not find my Jar Jar Binks comment funny either. He told me everyone hates Jar Jar Binks.

[GhostofSparta]

Yeah, my son told me. FYI, he did not find my Jar Jar Binks comment funny either. He told me everyone hates Jar Jar Binks.

Well, not everyone

[PeterMP]

The conversation is simply a vehicle used by those discussing mitigation strategy to steer it....same as any other political horse****.

 

be careful the spittle don't get on ya  

 

The problem becomes, without discussing a reasonable alternative, you get to put undocumented numbers on costs without any associated costs for another solution.

 

You've put the cost of prevention billions.

 

How much is mitigation costs?

 

How much of that billions makes sense to spend in terms of national security any way?

 

How much are we (and have we) going to spend on "national defense" in order to keep the oil flowing from the ME?

 

When you look at the costs of prevention, is it really that unreasonable?

 

But if you can't even get people to admit that human caused climate change is something we are doing and something we can do something about, then you can't even start to have those conversations.

[twa]

 

How much are we (and have we) going to spend on "national defense" in order to keep the oil flowing from the ME?

 

 

 

 national security 

you really don't want me to address that idiocy and the damn greenies that enabled it. (not dissimilar to what excess they will enable if the current crop succeeds today)

 

energy independence has been possible here long before fracking took off, but certain fools preferred to enrich and have to defend despots and place their hopes in fairy tales and the good will of the Sheikhs.

 

****s wouldn't know science or economics if it was gnawing on them.