Apologies for any typos or other errors, but this was a mammoth post to respond to, and not all of it coherent (to me). That being the case, it will be the last response I make of this nature (i.e. responses to specific points), but feel free to go another round of specifics--those can be the final word at this scale. It's simply too time-consuming for me.
Sure, theories are a necessary part of science, but they are just a part. Also, consensus hasn't "become a dirty word"....other than with people who don't accept consensus as "science". The IFLS midwits love it. We don't have arguments about gravity itself because it is consistently predictable in the same sense Euclidean geometry works at the level it works. Climate science is not like that. It is more akin to economics, like I said, which has "schools", some of which are favored by the government and some of which aren't, for obvious reasons of corporate (in the broadest) sense.
I disagree with this perception.
Virtually all scientists would agree that, in ordinary circumstances, if you drop a billiard ball from the top of a building, it will fall; but there are differing schools of thought as to
why. Similarly, virtually all scientists would agree that, in ordinary circumstances, the planet is warming; and there is pretty much only one school of thought as to why.
The impression, among you and others, seems to be that the "consensus" is a politically motivated scheme and is a threat to independent thought (i.e. thought uninhibited by the consensus); but the consensus is where the most independently-acquired data lies.
AGW is a theory is that humans are driving the majority of any measurable warming on the planet through greenhouse gas emission. Related scientists measure mean earth temperature, and mean earth greenhouse gasses (and maybe other things like polar ice levels). Right? Except GHG are more than CO2, but we get told we need to reduce CO2.
That's because of all the human/industry-created GHGs, CO2 makes up something like 85%, while methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons combined make up something like 15%.
Except not "we" but only the "Western" countries. Because fairness.
That's simply not true. China's responsibility is on par with the U.S., if not greater--and this has been argued. However, China has also poured more money into developing clean energy infrastructures, unlike the U.S., which has put tariffs on solar panels.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/china-davos-climate-change.html
As far as less developed, or developing, countries, yes--because fairness.
Nevermind 3rd and 4th factors. Nevermind the predictions that X number of places would be underwater by now and we would have world drought by now. We are sure about the science this time.
I don't understand what you're rambling about here.
Regardless of how gravity occurs, we can predict it with enough regularity to maneuver about both on earth, in geospace, and in interstellar space, with precision. Climate models are not at that level of precision, anymore than macro-economic models have been, and macro-economics is under far more centralized control by humans.
I have two responses to this:
A. Climate models aren't (and haven't been) as imprecise as you're claiming. You've posted a couple links about the failures of climate predictions, and I've posted responses demonstrating that those claims are misleading if not false. Climate predictions have demonstrated remarkable accuracy given the amount of uncertainty and complexity involved in the climate system. I'll repeat myself again: James Hansen's predictions weren't wrong. Claims that they were are misreadings of his presentation. The only thing he was slightly wrong about what the extent of consequential reactions we would see around the globe; but even he said those things were possibilities. There's no exact precision when talking about how much storms will increase in severity, or how much sea levels will rise, or how much warming we'll see--but all the outcomes have trended toward the predictions, if not been eerily close to them.
B. Let's assume for a moment that predictions are messy and often inaccurate. You're argument, in that case, is that we can't justify action because we don't know exactly what's going to happen. This isn't a rational response. When you're not sure if something bad will happen, but you have evidence suggesting that it will, it's smarter to take precautions. All the "alarmists," to use your term, want to do is take precautions. It's absurd to think we don't need to.
Consensus is a sharing of opinion. Consensus among people who study a given thing is still subject to bias, even if not subject to complete ignorance. Particularly when said bias is paid with both money and status.
Money and status? You keep repeating this as though it will make it true.
Climate researchers want to do research. If what you suggest is true, then they don't care about the accuracy of their results; rather, they care more about making their results fit a narrative that will win them more funding. In other words, all they care about is money. If that were true, then why aren't more climate researchers flocking to work for oil and coal companies, or for natural gas companies, or for any number of private corporations that would pay them substantially more than they make in academia?
Your hypothesis makes no sense. I'm sure you think you have some keen insight on the Cathedral's wooing of climate research for the purposes of consolidating global power, etc. etc. but there's a massive logical disconnect here.
There's more to the economy and markets than animal spirits. On the one hand, you have individual consumers, who made be either hopeful (your average person) or hypocrite (Obama cadre). On many other hands you have a multitude of investors, corporations, and entrepreneurs looking at varying timelines trying to determine how best to navigate the future in 10, 20, 30 years etc.
I never suggested it was animal spirits, but the market doesn't have any intuitive notion of products/services in and of themselves. All it has are what people think of products/services, and how those impressions translate to larger bodies. The market is a product of classical liberalism and individualism, so of course individuals are its primary drivers. Their impressions can be manipulated, but ultimately it comes down to what people think will work and what they think won't.
We can't "flip a switch" on nuclear, but 4Gen Nuclear is much safer, quicker to build, and more scalable than old tech nuclear, can be metldown proof, and it can actually burn what has been considered nuclear waste, eliminating almost all negatives. On the flip side, with these other techs, you have the issue of massive mining, manufacturing, transportation, maintenance, and later replacement of all aspects involved in other electric generation and storage of electricity.
I don't know the data on manufacturing and transportation, but you're right that these are all factors. I've never said nuclear should be ruled out, but I think a lot of the hesitance on the media/academic side of things has to do with the reopening of nuclear proliferation. That makes people uneasy, understandably so; but maybe it shouldn't.
At any rate, I'd like to read more cost/benefit breakdowns contrasting nuclear with various combinations of wind, solar, hydro, etc.
There a difference between the sprawl of an LA. Atlanta, a Houston, a New York, etc etc when compared with cities with populations under 200k, which good medium density, modular, mixed use zoning and elimination of roads in the interior of the city could compact into a small, walkable environment. Add on to that close down net-negative cities, including pretty much emptying most of the Southwest and other net negative cities like New Orleans.
I'm not sure what the argument is here, probably due in part to typos. I think you're just saying that smaller cities are better. Okay.
If the climate doesn't care about GDP, why does the US need to care about developing countries (somewhat GDP reflective)? This is a contradictory position.
I don't understand why. The climate can't be held ethically responsible for anything; nations can. What (or where) is the contradiction?
Separately, you're seem to be under the 1990s era impression that the US holds all the cards re:national interest. They don't. China holds a lot, is gaining more, and has demonstrated they do not care about the climate if it's at the expense of becoming the new superpower.
Well, see my above comment on China.
I'm really not sure how to handle what comes next, so I'm just going to take what I think are misunderstandings that shape the general statements:
Ok, now we come back to Krugman. I mentioned Krugman as one particular standout for repeatedly bad predictions, but also because economics is very similar to climatology in that it is very complex with so many constantly shifting inputs across the globe.
When you boil it down, economics is explaining human behavior. Climate science isn't. Human behavior is, in fact, more difficult to predict than the climate, which is why you have competing schools of thought in economics, but virtually no competing schools of thought in climate science. To use your gravity example, no one really disagrees what a billiard ball will do when you drop it from a rooftop; likewise, no one really disagrees what the global climate will do if the fossil fuel industry follows the "business as usual" avenue.
Also, there is no stable field of climatology. Although one can get degrees in climatology, a lot of climate scientists have degrees in astrophysics, biology, chemistry, ecology, etc. The variety of disciplinary perspectives has only strengthened what we know about climate change because numerous experts bring what they've discovered in their particular field.
It is in fact, the apocalyptic claim that spurred this whole thing to begin with. You claimed that global warming (or climate change, whichever you said, but I prefer the latter) was an existential threat that warranted removing Trump from office, to which I reacted. So I will now go through my view of things at this point:
1. We agree that the planet is likely warming currently.
2. We disagree about how much is problematic, and we disagree about the point that I have "basic facts" wrong or things are "misleading". You think that a counter study finding is proof positive. Without looking at both studies in detail, we simply have two findings at odds (which both might in fact be true - eg, when one study was done it was correct, and then the later study was also correct. Which makes the point I was making possibly less strong, but also introduces significant variability, which supports). Then we have the Hansen issue, which supports my knock on alarmism, except you find any warming alarming.
3. I pointed out that the "apocalyptic" predictions are repeatedly wrong, and you think basically any warming is apocalyptic, but also noted that it's not really an existential threat, just probably not good for various animals and poor people.
1. Climate predictions haven't been wrong, even while they haven't been exact.
2. Crises ("apocalypses") are already happening, you're just not experiencing them.
3. The end of the world isn't going to happen in an instant, outside of Hollywood manifestations. It's going to happen very slowly, affecting different people at different times and in different locations. That's what the "alarmism" is trying to point out. We're already seeing predictions come true.
4. You don't understand how science (questions drive answers) and Fed grant funding works (have to ask the questions that are funded) apparently, since you completely denied and strawmanned my point. Furthermore peer-review can reject things for running afoul of reviewer biases in completely unethical and unscientific ways (I've seen this first hand). I can't completely hold it against you though because both BU and Harvard are private and well endowed, so their economics are different, but that's an anomaly in the US university system.
I don't think I strawmanned anything, but okay.
Also because you don't get to see reviewer comments on scientific papers.
Do you mean that reviewer comments are protected from publication? Because as the author of a scientific paper, you do get to see your reviewers' comments. Maybe the way this happens varies from journal to journal (I mean, I've had reviewer comments withheld on things I've submitted, but it's not a discipline-wide policy).
5. You note that "researchers support the policies because of what the climate research shows". Yet climate researchers aren't experts in politics and economics, so A. Why should they put forth opinions into the public sphere in those domains and B. Why should anyone listen to them.
A. They don't.
They submit their findings to interdisciplinary bodies and panels, and policymakers with backgrounds in economics, public policy, city planning, etc. come up with proposals. Scientists might agree or disagree with those proposals, but they don't come up with them.
My whole point on this is about the repeated failing of alarming. I started with Hansen, but there is headline after headline after headline for the last 5-40+ years predicting we are always 10-30 years away from a global catastrophe if we don't simply hand more control to government, whether national or the UN. The alarmism predates our contemporary political timespan (ie, late teens on, year ~2000+) so it seems new. But it's not. So, this idea that A. Trump is some unique threat for not having the US even further outpreform most of the rest of the world and B. That regardless of anything else he might have done or would, this is the thing that makes him "unelectable" is ridiculous (and although it's not impeachable worthy, he "deserves to go", so that seems a bit out of both sides of the mouth). There's plenty of real problems both with Trump as a person, and with what Trump does or doesn't do, but grandstanding on this multidecade grift is ridiculous.
All I want is for communication and discourse to continue. That's exactly what Trump doesn't want, and that's why he's intervening wherever he can. Your overreactions reads like apathy. You said earlier that you're "anti-pollution," so why aren't you interested in policies that incentivize fossil fuel companies to decrease their production and shift focus to other kinds of energy, nuclear or otherwise? Because they're not going to do it on their own. When you say things aren't that bad, you make excuses for them to continue polluting.
As a PS, here's a brief sample of more alarmism (some by very prestigious "experts") that absolutely did not come to fruition, capped with a more recent future proclamation.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/102074798
Spoiler Alert: You can still go vacation there!
"Threatening."
Have you read about British winters over the past couple years?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weat...ondon-south-east-siberian-arctic-blast-latest
Being plunged into a "Siberian climate" doesn't mean it's all winter, all snow, all the time. Did you know that southern Siberia actually has moderate summers?
In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.
Aw damn, predictions that didn't pan out which were the basis of demands were held accountable?? The nerve!
https://e360.yale.edu/features/tipping_point_arctic_heads_to_ice_free_summers
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report
Remember, the climate doesn't care about GDP. What's worse? Poor people don't get nice things, or they die?
I could keep responding to these, but thus far this has proven to be underwhelming. You're either not evaluating the claims properly, or ignoring the implications of uncertainty and possibility in climate modeling. Finally, you've found a few specific examples among the ready-to-hand availability of accurate climate predictions, but all of which you dismiss because "consensus."
