The News Thread

[Dak]

Only the most politically-motivated pretend it doesn’t.

There, fixed that.

A lot of people will be able to survive if things get worse—namely, wealthy people. But they’re the only ones who matter anyway, amirite?

Why is it the most politically motivated and the biggest scolds are the ones pushing the AGW religion while carrying massive carbon footprints? Big swing and a miss.

I don’t think you’re paying close enough attention.

You conveniently ignored the Guardian link that demonstrated how the WSJ piece itself is an example of the failure of those who seek to undermine climate “alarmism.” Hansen’s predictions have been almost spot on, yet you perpetuate this nonsense.

I didn't ignore it, I pointed out they pointed out the alarmist prediction wasn't accurate. The "accurate" prediction (which is probably based on fake science, like what I linked from Columbia), equates to approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit. Not exactly a hockeystick.

If I had time to go through the rest of your complaints I would, but I’m with family. Happy holidays.

Well I would say "convenient", but it is the holidays, and time with family is more of existential concern than anything. Feel free to pick up whenever.

 

[Einherjar86]

Bit of an afternoon lull:

I pay attention, I'm just a bit more skeptical of academia and journalists. I was also fortunate enough to be trained in academia how to spot bad science reporting, which facilitates noticing the graph in your link uses a classic trick to misrepresent data, manipulating both the Y and X axis:
https://venngage.com/blog/misleading-graphs/

Edit: There's another bit of misinterpretation of that graph included as well, just as a bonus. Either the author doesn't understand how averages work, or is intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way is equally likely.

What you call manipulations can also be techniques to highlight where changes are happening. You see malicious intent, I see magnification for the purposes of identifying changes.

Also, these "misleading" graphs don't change the actual numbers, which remain accurate.

Also being aware of fact that the Arctic isn't the only repository of ice on the planet earth. Wonder what's happening at the other pole?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

That study was, in fact, inaccurate:

In a study published in 2017 scientists were able to combine information from satellite altimetry, gravimetry, and GPS to measure the ice balance in East Antarctica from 2003-2013 When looking at this data they were unable to confirm Zwally’s findings. This study concluded that gains in East Antarctica are smaller than losses in West Antarctica. In fact, the gains in East Antarctica were about a third of what Zwally’s study believed them to be.

The graph below is from information in another study done in 2018 and it shows the change in the rates of ice sheet loss over the years. You can see that the line for East Antarctica did show a positive rate of change for much of the past few decades. However, it was not enough to offset the losses in West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. We can clearly see that when these numbers are put together the continent is losing a lot of ice every year. Furthermore, the rate of loss is getting worse as time goes by.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevina...fsetting-its-losses-infographic/#803633703005

I also notice that whenever I read any sort of counter evidence to AGW from any "official source", they also engage in this maneuver:

"I know the data doesn't support our position currently, but just wait!". Just like all of those people still waiting on the rapture.

The difference here is that these predictions aren't based on fantasy. They're based on past observations that support future outcomes. The timing remains uncertain because future human activity remains uncertain.

I don't read the WSJ generally (paywall), but that was a quicker link to refer to the constant failure of alarmist claims than cobbling together separate exhaustive links. Earths climate is a complex system operating on scales that has repeatedly confounded models. Climatologists are responding by trying to force data to comply with their belief system, like the building of a modern type of epicycles. Behold:

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/03/05/climate-change-hurricanes-stronger/

Damn those scientifically rigorous approaches, getting in the way of useful information. Never mind that the question is "is climate change making hurricanes stronger" which already assumes climate change. Sobel is going a step further and discarding the null from the outset. When an Ivy League school is this corrupt and admits it, why should I trust the rest of it?

At this point, it wastes times to not assume climate change/global warming. None of the data on that front has been manipulated or intentionally/maliciously altered. I shouldn't have to provide you with data here because it's overwhelmingly available on the internet; and "studies" attempting to fault that data or undermine it have been routinely debunked. The predictions have been accurate (including James Hansen's), and the planet continues to warm. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. At this point, scientists have agreed that it's acceptable for future studies to assume the planet is warming; and deniers will continue to try and prove otherwise, so you don't need to worry.

No study is perfect or complete; and if scientists are forthcoming out the limitations in their work, then that should make you trust them more. This isn't "fake science," it's fast science; and fast science can be imperfect, incomplete, and sloppy. But fortunately, the scientific community actually has strategies for correcting these issues.

Finally, you've acknowledged that the planet and its climate changes at scales radically different than those of humans; and at those scales, .35 Celsius rise since 2000 is hardly insignificant--and fall in line with Hansen's predictions.

 

[Dak]

Bit of an afternoon lull:

What you call manipulations can also be techniques to highlight where changes are happening. You see malicious intent, I see magnification for the purposes of identifying changes.

Also, these "misleading" graphs don't change the actual numbers, which remain accurate.

Simply chopping months off the X axis, to make it look as if the loss is [--------] big rather than [-] big, is disingenuous. If the data is good enough in itself, why engage in the unscrupulous behavior?

That study was, in fact, inaccurate:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevina...fsetting-its-losses-infographic/#803633703005

The difference here is that these predictions aren't based on fantasy. They're based on past observations that support future outcomes. The timing remains uncertain because future human activity remains uncertain.

I haven't said anything about fantasy. A lot of work goes into manufacturing numbers (and all numbers are manufactured, some simply more closely reflect material reality). Maybe the 2015 study is/was inaccurate. Maybe the 2017 study was as well (likely both). The more complex the issue is the greater the noise to signal ratio in data collection, and then throw in the religious fervor behind the endeavor and the abandonment of scientific principles in the interest of zeal and certainty, and there's little there to trust.

At this point, it wastes times to not assume climate change/global warming. None of the data on that front has been manipulated or intentionally/maliciously altered. I shouldn't have to provide you with data here because it's overwhelmingly available on the internet; and "studies" attempting to fault that data or undermine it have been routinely debunked. The predictions have been accurate (including James Hansen's), and the planet continues to warm. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. At this point, scientists have agreed that it's acceptable for future studies to assume the planet is warming; and deniers will continue to try and prove otherwise, so you don't need to worry.

No study is perfect or complete; and if scientists are forthcoming out the limitations in their work, then that should make you trust them more. This isn't "fake science," it's fast science; and fast science can be imperfect, incomplete, and sloppy. But fortunately, the scientific community actually has strategies for correcting these issues.

Finally, you've acknowledged that the planet and its climate changes at scales radically different than those of humans; and at those scales, .35 Celsius rise since 2000 is hardly insignificant--and fall in line with Hansen's predictions.

You missed my point. I didn't take issue with assuming climate change. I took issue with "assuming climate change contributes to a strengthening of storms". Why not simply assume designed drugs fix the medical problems they are aimed at? We arguably have a better understanding of chemistry and biology than the earth's climate processes. Yet we know that would be a poor decision. Admitting to scrapping the null isn't admitting to limitations. "Fast science" might be fast, but it isn't science. It's deciding the outcome in advance. One of the problem with observational studies, is that there's no external control, so we are forced to control internally, when with climate that involves more difficulty looking back over timelines that dwarf human existence, much less measurable impact on the climate.

I don't know how many times I have to point out I don't believe in climate stasis. I'm just skeptical about the religion around climate change. Michael Hulme laid bare the mindset undergirding this religion in its more serious formulation (its less serious although more honest formulation being something out of the mouth of someone like AOC).

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.

It has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science.

So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way: as a challenge to the process of climate change science, or to the values they believe to be implicit in the science, rather than as a direct challenge to scientific knowledge.

In this reading, Singer and Avery are using apparently scientific arguments - about 1,500 year cycles, about the loss of species, about sea-level rise - to further their deeper (yet unexpressed) values and beliefs. Too often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about these wider social values - do we have confidence in technology; do we believe in collective action over private enterprise; do we believe we carry obligations to people invisible to us in geography and time? - masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error.

We need this perspective of post-normal science if we are going to make sense of books such as Singer and Avery's. Or indeed, if we are to make sense of polar opposites such as James Lovelock's recent contribution The Revenge of Gaia, in which he extends climate science to reach the conclusion that the collapse of civilisation is no more than a couple of generations away.

The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. Singer has this view of science, as do some of his more outspoken campaigning critics such as Mark Lynas. That is why their exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences. If the battle of science is won, then the war of values will be won.

If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage.

As is a typical newspeak move, an article titled "The Appliance of Science" is actually about not applying science. This isn't about science at all, but an issue of values and political preferences. So I return to my previously asked question: What people? What lifestyles?

 

[Einherjar86]

Simply chopping months off the X axis, to make it look as if the loss is [--------] big rather than [-] big, is disingenuous. If the data is good enough in itself, why engage in the unscrupulous behavior?

Because most people aren't capable of identifying and evaluating the meaning(s) of data. Presentation can help underscore the gravity of what's being identified.

I haven't said anything about fantasy. A lot of work goes into manufacturing numbers (and all numbers are manufactured, some simply more closely reflect material reality). Maybe the 2015 study is/was inaccurate. Maybe the 2017 study was as well (likely both). The more complex the issue is the greater the noise to signal ratio in data collection, and then throw in the religious fervor behind the endeavor and the abandonment of scientific principles in the interest of zeal and certainty, and there's little there to trust.

Here's where my main concern lies. You've referred to a few different commentaries on climate change (WSJ and the study on hurricanes), both of which are, at best, flawed, and at worst, willful mischaracterizations. You continue to refer to climate concern as "religious" in nature, or as "alarmist"; and you use this language as a way to demonize the behavior of climate scientists. Yet you misapply these words. The religiosity you purport to diagnose derives from what you perceive as the apocalyptic dimension of climate concern; but the apocalypticism of ancient scripture wasn't due to observed phenomena in nature. It derived from the vivid imaginations of practiced storytellers--hence my appeal to "fantasy."

By contrast, climatologists have been observing phenomena and have kept track of changes since the mid-nineteenth century. This isn't unfounded apocalypticism; it's the persistent observation of a warming world for centuries.

Also, accelerated species extinction (flora and fauna), resource loss and extraction, flooding, drought, etc. are causes for alarm. No climatologist has ever said there would be worldwide drought, or global flooding, or human extinction in any immediate sense. Global warming isn't going to cause the human race to go up and "poof" in fifty or even a hundred years. It will cause the suffering and death of many people, mostly those who live in poorer areas subject to resource extraction by the global north.

You missed my point. I didn't take issue with assuming climate change. I took issue with "assuming climate change contributes to a strengthening of storms". Why not simply assume designed drugs fix the medical problems they are aimed at? We arguably have a better understanding of chemistry and biology than the earth's climate processes. Yet we know that would be a poor decision. Admitting to scrapping the null isn't admitting to limitations. "Fast science" might be fast, but it isn't science. It's deciding the outcome in advance. One of the problem with observational studies, is that there's no external control, so we are forced to control internally, when with climate that involves more difficulty looking back over timelines that dwarf human existence, much less measurable impact on the climate.

I'm sorry I missed your point, but fast science is still science; and observational studies are all we have when the planet is the laboratory. There's no way to completely control studies on climate; but that's not a reason to discredit them entirely. Climate science demands an entirely new degree and scale of interdisciplinary study. We need to continue talking about this and funding studies of it--and our current president presents a danger to that enterprise.

I don't know how many times I have to point out I don't believe in climate stasis. I'm just skeptical about the religion around climate change. Michael Hulme laid bare the mindset undergirding this religion in its more serious formulation (its less serious although more honest formulation being something out of the mouth of someone like AOC).

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

As is a typical newspeak move, an article titled "The Appliance of Science" is actually about not applying science. This isn't about science at all, but an issue of values and political preferences. So I return to my previously asked question: What people? What lifestyles?

There is no science that isn't partly about values and politics. I would never argue that climate science is value-free. Why are the WSJ opiners whom you cited somehow immune this critique? I don't understand this argument as a knock on climatology (or the question you’re returning to).

 

[Dak]

Because most people aren't capable of identifying and evaluating the meaning(s) of data. Presentation can help underscore the gravity of what's being identified.

Here's where my main concern lies. You've referred to a few different commentaries on climate change (WSJ and the study on hurricanes), both of which are, at best, flawed, and at worst, willful mischaracterizations. You continue to refer to climate concern as "religious" in nature, or as "alarmist"; and you use this language as a way to demonize the behavior of climate scientists. Yet you misapply these words. The religiosity you purport to diagnose derives from what you perceive as the apocalyptic dimension of climate concern; but the apocalypticism of ancient scripture wasn't due to observed phenomena in nature. It derived from the vivid imaginations of practiced storytellers--hence my appeal to "fantasy."

By contrast, climatologists have been observing phenomena and have kept track of changes since the mid-nineteenth century. This isn't unfounded apocalypticism; it's the persistent observation of a warming world for centuries.

Also, accelerated species extinction (flora and fauna), resource loss and extraction, flooding, drought, etc. are causes for alarm. No climatologist has ever said there would be worldwide drought, or global flooding, or human extinction in any immediate sense. Global warming isn't going to cause the human race to go up and "poof" in fifty or even a hundred years. It will cause the suffering and death of many people, mostly those who live in poorer areas subject to resource extraction by the global north.

I'm sorry I missed your point, but fast science is still science; and observational studies are all we have when the planet is the laboratory. There's no way to completely control studies on climate; but that's not a reason to discredit them entirely. Climate science demands an entirely new degree and scale of interdisciplinary study. We need to continue talking about this and funding studies of it--and our current president presents a danger to that enterprise.

Simply, no. To all of the above. Few modern scientists are beyond the bend of the economic material reality of funding, and you attack those realities when in the interest of the "oil barons" but deny those realities when in the interest of the political barons, as it were. Hulme noted these factors, yet you will not. I showed where this leading figure of the climate religion completely denied science in favor of religion.

The ironic factor, which I return to again and again, is that the most affluent, including those which lecture us mere mortals, live lives in complete antithesis to those which one who would be a true believer in all of the predictions of climate change would live. They buy and build expensive properties on the low-lying coasts; they fly, frequently, in the highest class available; they dine exquisitely, expensively, and disposably. LOL FUCK YOU (them). How can the poor most suffer when the rich buy castles on the coast and the poor live in dying hovels far from the oceans? The Obamas bought a mansion lying approximately 16ft above sea level. Give me a goddamn break. This religion is one of ELITE CONTROL of the unlearned masses, and they grow apoplectic when the unlearned masses haven't "learned".

Fortunately, you admit there's no existential threat. Existential threat *at the species level* means human extinction. Glad we cleared that up.

There is no science that isn't partly about values and politics. I would never argue that climate science is value-free. Why are the WSJ opiners whom you cited somehow immune this critique? I don't understand this argument as a knock on climatology (or the question you’re returning to).

You do. Which is why you won't answer the question I've posed twice. Please answer.

 

[Einherjar86]

Simply, no. To all of the above. Few modern scientists are beyond the bend of the economic material reality of funding, and you attack those realities when in the interest of the "oil barons" but deny those realities when in the interest of the political barons, as it were. Hulme noted these factors, yet you will not. I showed where this leading figure of the climate religion completely denied science in favor of religion.

How does creating arguments in favor of global warming give scientists a funding edge? Where do you think their money comes from? Scientists get funding through their universities and grant money. Many universities invest in fossil fuel companies (this is partly where their large endowments come from), and some even accept donations from such companies. At the bureaucratic level, universities have an interest in suppressing climate research. If you actually bothered to talk to scientists working at universities, you'd learn that working on climate change isn't a golden goose. In fact, it can hurt their funding and chances at getting tenure. Scientists work on climate because they're interested in learning more, not because they want money.

On the other hand, let's assume that universities divest from fossil fuel companies and receive little to no funding from them. At the most, universities have a neutral stance toward the results that scientists produce; all that matters is whether they publish their findings, and that those findings hold water in the larger scientific community. As far as I can tell, you seem to think that higher ed is embroiled in some massive, discipline-wide conspiracy to manipulate climate research findings so as to better guarantee institutional funding. But why climate science? Why not some other discipline? There's no logic to this theory.

tl;dr--If scientists really wanted to secure funding and didn't care about the quality of their research, they'd work for fossil fuel companies. That's where the money is. It's simple dollars and cents (although internal research from fossil fuel companies happens to reinforce what academic researchers have found):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html

Researchers working in climate change do not receive atypically large paychecks, nor do they strike it rich from grants. The claim also ignores that internal research from oil companies affirms the scientific consensus on climate change.

Professors at public universities who teach earth sciences and environmental studies generally earn more than their peers in humanities and social sciences, but less than faculty in the economics, business and law departments, according to data from the Association of American Universities.

For example, at Pennsylvania State University, professors in the earth and mineral sciences department made an average salary of $157,773, which was below the universitywide average of $166,731. Professors in earth and environmental sciences earned $98,567 on average at Iowa State University, compared with the average salary of $134,039.

In the 2017 fiscal year, the federal government spent about $13.2 billion in climate change funding, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. The bulk, about $9 billion, funded clean energy technology, while science funding accounted for $2.8 billion. Climate science funding represents about 2.4 percent of the $118.3 billion in total federal research funding in the 2017 fiscal year.

The ironic factor, which I return to again and again, is that the most affluent, including those which lecture us mere mortals, live lives in complete antithesis to those which one who would be a true believer in all of the predictions of climate change would live. They buy and build expensive properties on the low-lying coasts; they fly, frequently, in the highest class available; they dine exquisitely, expensively, and disposably.

You're totally, undeniably right about this.

How does that undermine any of my arguments that climate change is an urgent concern?

LOL FUCK YOU (them). How can the poor most suffer when the rich buy castles on the coast and the poor live in dying hovels far from the oceans? The Obamas bought a mansion lying approximately 16ft above sea level. Give me a goddamn break.

Simply put, the wealthy can afford to move. And the powers that be (including universities) have material interests in protecting their elite classes.

Fortunately, you admit there's no existential threat. Existential threat *at the species level* means human extinction. Glad we cleared that up.

Climate change does pose an existential threat--to numerous species around the planet. Maybe not to humans in any immediate way; but species diversity is crucial to ecosystem maintenance, and we're seeing species disappear at an increasing rate. From a scientific perspective, species and ecosystem maintenance are as important as human existence, and essential to maintaining anything remotely resembling our current way of life.

You do. Which is why you won't answer the question I've posed twice. Please answer.

I really don't. Restate it and I will.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The 6 million endangered species that go extinct every year aren't the ones driving ecosystems. The majority are some unimportant species of beetle or bird that varies from another a few miles away only in the form of maybe some subtle colored stripe and sufficient generations of seclusion. You can speciate fruit flies in a lab with enough time. afaik, it's believed that we've had many warm periods far warmer than today's without any associated mass extinction event. Climate change will probably fuck over certain regions/nations, but that's nothing new either. If we have to take in some polynesians because their island nations go fully underwater, no biggie. According to the various bullshit economic models, refugees will boost our GDP growth anyways.

 

[Einherjar86]

The 6 million endangered species that go extinct every year aren't the ones driving ecosystems. The majority are some unimportant species of beetle or bird that varies from another a few miles away only in the form of maybe some subtle colored stripe and sufficient generations of seclusion. You can speciate fruit flies in a lab with enough time. afaik, it's believed that we've had many warm periods far warmer than today's without any associated mass extinction event.

I've worked with biologists and earth/environment scientists, all of whom say that species extinction is already affecting ecosystem maintenance (some of them work in the field where they're observing these changes). One major example is coral reef loss, a combined result of overfishing and warming oceans, and which has further economic impacts on fisheries. In a more general sense, species loss means ecosystem loss, over the long run. Tropical ecosystems are some of the best carbon sinks we have, but they're also more susceptible than other biomes to warming effects (although deforestation likely poses a greater immediate threat to tropical ecosystems than long-term warming effects). Less noticeable fauna like birds and beetles might be less important, but there's no way to predict that. It could yield virtually no impact, or it could drive the movement of multiple other species.

Regarding earlier warm periods, we have had them; but if the earth warms slowly, over a long period of time, species have a chance to adapt. Organic life evolves along with the climate in which it finds itself. In the case of our current warming trend, it's happening too quickly for species to evolve in any beneficial way. The warming over the past three centuries or so has occurred at an unprecedented rate, at least during the past two millennia.

 

[Dak]

How does creating arguments in favor of global warming give scientists a funding edge? Where do you think their money comes from? Scientists get funding through their universities and grant money. Many universities invest in fossil fuel companies (this is partly where their large endowments come from), and some even accept donations from such companies. At the bureaucratic level, universities have an interest in suppressing climate research. If you actually bothered to talk to scientists working at universities, you'd learn that working on climate change isn't a golden goose. In fact, it can hurt their funding and chances at getting tenure. Scientists work on climate because they're interested in learning more, not because they want money.

On the other hand, let's assume that universities divest from fossil fuel companies and receive little to no funding from them. At the most, universities have a neutral stance toward the results that scientists produce; all that matters is whether they publish their findings, and that those findings hold water in the larger scientific community. As far as I can tell, you seem to think that higher ed is embroiled in some massive, discipline-wide conspiracy to manipulate climate research findings so as to better guarantee institutional funding. But why climate science? Why not some other discipline? There's no logic to this theory.

tl;dr--If scientists really wanted to secure funding and didn't care about the quality of their research, they'd work for fossil fuel companies. That's where the money is. It's simple dollars and cents (although internal research from fossil fuel companies happens to reinforce what academic researchers have found):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html

"Getting rich off" is taking it to the extreme. Generally speaking, no professor is "getting rich" off any grants, even if they obtain many grants. What is researched and the questions asked by research is driven by A. Government Funding and B. Industry Funding. Only the latter is ever questioned as a potential source of conflict of interest. My mentor does industry research, and has to go to some lengths to stay above any possible conflict of interest. Yet no one doing say, NIH research has to do the same. Companies want research done that is likely to promote their interest - which is to say growth. The same goes for government. While the university as an institution might be neutral on results, they are often not neutral on funding, and funding is contingent on questions, and questions drive results.

I'm not limiting the problem to climate research either. Social sciences have a massive issue with bad science, which have, at a minimum, lead to massive wastes in education spending. But the scope of demanded change in response to supposed AGW - *but only for Western countries* - makes the boondoggles like Head Start look insignificant.

You're totally, undeniably right about this.

How does that undermine any of my arguments that climate change is an urgent concern?

Simply put, the wealthy can afford to move. And the powers that be (including universities) have material interests in protecting their elite classes.

Aye, the wealthy can afford to move, but why sink so much money into an asset that is likely to lose all of its value? Betting markets are prediction markets, and the wisdom of the prediction markets is that regardless of how large of a concern climate change might be, it is not an urgent concern.

Climate change does pose an existential threat--to numerous species around the planet. Maybe not to humans in any immediate way; but species diversity is crucial to ecosystem maintenance, and we're seeing species disappear at an increasing rate. From a scientific perspective, species and ecosystem maintenance are as important as human existence, and essential to maintaining anything remotely resembling our current way of life.

I really don't. Restate it and I will.

There have been mass die-offs in the past due to various catastrophes, and the earth chugs along and renews. I'm not saying it's of no concern, but I think this alarmism is of no help. On the other hand, maybe I'd think differently if the proposed "solutions" didn't all look like no climate solution at all, but instead simply communism-lite for western countries, with no direct connection to actually doing anything to "combat climate change". Like I said, what values? What political preferences? Climate alarmism looks like an excuse for the same globalist policies that have been pushed since the supposed threat was an ice age rather than vanishing glaciers.

Re: Trump being crazy threat to the earth's climate: Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord. Why? Because A. It was a sham, which even environmentalists were fine with acknowledging until Trump agreed. and B. It put western countries at a unique disadvantage while leaving major polluters in the East to continue unabated in practice. The US is doing good work in comparison with many countries on curbing emissions (and could do even better with a commitment to 4thGen Nuclear), and Trump didn't suddenly create some new crisis.

https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/

The US has emissions near 1990 levels with much higher GDP and population, ie, emissions per capita and per $ is down.

 

[Dak]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brando...-young-adults-in-just-six-years/#20330dea4b56

When asked how important a college education is today, 41% of U.S. adults aged 18-29 say “very important,” which is down a whopping 45% since 2013 when 74% said the same.

Yuge if true.

 

[Einherjar86]

Companies want research done that is likely to promote their interest - which is to say growth. The same goes for government. While the university as an institution might be neutral on results, they are often not neutral on funding, and funding is contingent on questions, and questions drive results.

Universities don't work for the government though. Federal funding has never been withheld because a university failed to produce work on climate science. I don't understand where you see the incentive.

Aye, the wealthy can afford to move, but why sink so much money into an asset that is likely to lose all of its value? Betting markets are prediction markets, and the wisdom of the prediction markets is that regardless of how large of a concern climate change might be, it is not an urgent concern.

Because people act irrationally all the time; and our desire to believe that things will be alright in the future is strong.

There have been mass die-offs in the past due to various catastrophes, and the earth chugs along and renews. I'm not saying it's of no concern, but I think this alarmism is of no help. On the other hand, maybe I'd think differently if the proposed "solutions" didn't all look like no climate solution at all, but instead simply communism-lite for western countries, with no direct connection to actually doing anything to "combat climate change". Like I said, what values? What political preferences? Climate alarmism looks like an excuse for the same globalist policies that have been pushed since the supposed threat was an ice age rather than vanishing glaciers.

What about divesting from fossil fuels and pursuing alternative clean energy solutions is communist? This is where I lose the thread: when people say that climate activism is a ruse for smuggling in communist policies.

No one's saying the market is to blame (whether or not it is), only certain industries. It's not that cattle farming and automobile manufacturing need to stop; it's that the scale of production has reached excessive proportions. We're past supply and demand at this point. The past three centuries have sunk us in the fossil economy, and so it takes some serious imagination to figure a way out. But that doesn't mean communism.

Re: Trump being crazy threat to the earth's climate: Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord. Why? Because A. It was a sham, which even environmentalists were fine with acknowledging until Trump agreed. and B. It put western countries at a unique disadvantage while leaving major polluters in the East to continue unabated in practice. The US is doing good work in comparison with many countries on curbing emissions (and could do even better with a commitment to 4thGen Nuclear), and Trump didn't suddenly create some new crisis.

No, he just doesn't want us to do anything about it.

If we want other countries to do something about their emissions, then we need to talk to them. The U.S. has drawn down its emissions, but not enough, and not in comparison with many countries; we're still second only to China. The industrialized East does need to make changes, and that's why we need open lines of communication about climate issues. Pulling out of the Paris Accord forecloses that option.

I know you're a nationalist, and so embracing global solutions seems counterproductive to you. I think the sooner we push the Overton window in the direction of international cooperation, the better things will be.

 

[Dak]

Universities don't work for the government though. Federal funding has never been withheld because a university failed to produce work on climate science. I don't understand where you see the incentive.

Because people act irrationally all the time; and our desire to believe that things will be alright in the future is strong.

Universities do work for the government, to varying degrees. Maybe not Harvard, or BU, or Duke in a monetary sense, but that's a tiny slice of higher education. And professors at private universities still compete for prestigious grants. If I were a climatologist, and I were to try to go about research in an approach diverging from something like Sobel described, would I win out for funding? Unlikely. If I'm not getting funding and I'm not publishing because either no studies or people refuse to believe the data, then no tenure. There are all sorts of incentives at play. Besides monetary incentives, there are status incentives. One of the reasons (but not the only) polls didn't reflect Trumps' actual election performance is because in some circles it would be a big blow to status to admit you were going to vote for Trump. This fact also has only grown more cemented btw.

Individuals do act irrationally, but on the whole markets tend to be the most efficient and generally accurate prediction mechanism we have on long term, big projects/developments. It's not simply that the Obamas bought an expensive house in a vulnerable area, it's that the property was still priced high. Seawalls are getting built rather than a move inland. Etc. Etc.

What about divesting from fossil fuels and pursuing alternative clean energy solutions is communist? This is where I lose the thread: when people say that climate activism is a ruse for smuggling in communist policies.

No one's saying the market is to blame (whether or not it is), only certain industries. It's not that cattle farming and automobile manufacturing need to stop; it's that the scale of production has reached excessive proportions. We're past supply and demand at this point. The past three centuries have sunk us in the fossil economy, and so it takes some serious imagination to figure a way out. But that doesn't mean communism.

To try and describe rather simply how I distinguish "communism" is that "communist" policies take the decision making of every day living out of the hands of the market or individual and placing it into the hands of an unelected (or de facto unelected) political body. There are people who have believed in this vision going back to the 1800s. The "Green New Deal" for example, follows from this type of vision. What does a "living wage" and nationalized healthcare have to do with reducing carbon emissions? Yet it is there. Many signatories to the GND signed contingent on not using carbon capture or nuclear energy. Why would we refuse the two greatest options there seem to be for reducing emissions while maintaining quality of life? Because it isn't about reducing climate change. It's about controlling people.

Just as a side note about "certain industries": One of the reasons that agriculture exists as it does is because of the hyperurbanization on the coasts has happened as it has. "Farm to table" gets expensive and leads to greater emissions when the corn and the cows are 1000+ miles away from where the consumers are. Add on significant federal and state intervention and subsidization and this creates more issues of loss and waste. But instead of looking at all of those aspects, and nevermind the fact that agriculture in total (excluding transportation) makes up only 9% of emissions, the little people are told they are going to need to "eat bugs". Bet NYT editors still going to enjoy filet mignon though.

No, he just doesn't want us to do anything about it.

If we want other countries to do something about their emissions, then we need to talk to them. The U.S. has drawn down its emissions, but not enough, and not in comparison with many countries; we're still second only to China. The industrialized East does need to make changes, and that's why we need open lines of communication about climate issues. Pulling out of the Paris Accord forecloses that option.

I know you're a nationalist, and so embracing global solutions seems counterproductive to you. I think the sooner we push the Overton window in the direction of international cooperation, the better things will be.

EU countries have increased emissions, the US has decreased them. Comparing total emissions between countries isn't a fair comparison though both because of development and geographic and population size. You have to look at per capita and per gdp, as well as looking at the trends. China's per capita and per GDP are currently lower than the US, but it's trending rapidly in the wrong direction, nevermind non-GHG pollution issues.

International cooperation is a quaint ideal of euro-stock peoples, which reached its highwater mark probably with the formation of the EU and the crumbling of the USSR. That world is pre-rise of China, and pre-GWOT disaster. International cooperation is moving towards bilateral agreements and regional interest blocks, dominated by the great power in the region, with large cities having outsized influence for the time being. The US needs to do what is best for the US, because anything else is suicide. China recognizes this, which is why, despite having a view of time that dwarfs that of western nations, it is much more worried about growing than emissions. Regardless of what happens by the end of the century with emissions, if the US doesn't get smart, few are going to care what the US has to say about anything, much like no one cares much what the British have to say about things anymore.

 

[Einherjar86]

Universities do work for the government, to varying degrees. Maybe not Harvard, or BU, or Duke in a monetary sense, but that's a tiny slice of higher education. And professors at private universities still compete for prestigious grants. If I were a climatologist, and I were to try to go about research in an approach diverging from something like Sobel described, would I win out for funding? Unlikely. If I'm not getting funding and I'm not publishing because either no studies or people refuse to believe the data, then no tenure. There are all sorts of incentives at play. Besides monetary incentives, there are status incentives. One of the reasons (but not the only) polls didn't reflect Trumps' actual election performance is because in some circles it would be a big blow to status to admit you were going to vote for Trump. This fact also has only grown more cemented btw.

You'd receive funding for a proposed approach if it offers an unprecedented and novel perspective on the climate issue. You won't receive funding if your proposal assumes results before it produces them, which is what your comment suggests.

Popular publications and platforms have published data that contradicts the consensus; you linked to some. Scientific journals don't prohibit this data, as long as it appears well-researched. Science works by fact-checking itself, and this is how studies that both contradict and reinforce the consensus have been found wanting. If it's harder to publish contradictory data (i.e. data that contradicts the consensus), that's because science has been able to weed out faulty methods.

Individuals do act irrationally, but on the whole markets tend to be the most efficient and generally accurate prediction mechanism we have on long term, big projects/developments. It's not simply that the Obamas bought an expensive house in a vulnerable area, it's that the property was still priced high. Seawalls are getting built rather than a move inland. Etc. Etc.

I find this utterly unconvincing. Markets reflect people's beliefs about what something's worth. As long as people tend to believe that things will be fine, then markets will mirror that belief. Even people who say they believe in anthropogenic climate change still want to believe the future will be okay. That's all the market predicts. It's not some magic divining rod.

To try and describe rather simply how I distinguish "communism" is that "communist" policies take the decision making of every day living out of the hands of the market or individual and placing it into the hands of an unelected (or de facto unelected) political body. There are people who have believed in this vision going back to the 1800s. The "Green New Deal" for example, follows from this type of vision. What does a "living wage" and nationalized healthcare have to do with reducing carbon emissions? Yet it is there. Many signatories to the GND signed contingent on not using carbon capture or nuclear energy. Why would we refuse the two greatest options there seem to be for reducing emissions while maintaining quality of life? Because it isn't about reducing climate change. It's about controlling people.

No, it's not. It's because you can't just flip the switch on nuclear. We need to plan and prepare for going that route. It's also because alternative solutions can provide us with a lot of energy. I know people personally who've gone solar--in New England, of all places--and they've been able to power themselves almost entirely through the winter and reduce their energy costs in the long run (after a couple initially high bills). These routes aren't fools' errands.

Just as a side note about "certain industries": One of the reasons that agriculture exists as it does is because of the hyperurbanization on the coasts has happened as it has. "Farm to table" gets expensive and leads to greater emissions when the corn and the cows are 1000+ miles away from where the consumers are. Add on significant federal and state intervention and subsidization and this creates more issues of loss and waste. But instead of looking at all of those aspects, and nevermind the fact that agriculture in total (excluding transportation) makes up only 9% of emissions, the little people are told they are going to need to "eat bugs". Bet NYT editors still going to enjoy filet mignon though.

I'm not saying that urbanization isn't to blame, but the solution isn't "damn all cities."

Also, subsidies for the fossil fuel industry are gargantuan.

EU countries have increased emissions, the US has decreased them. Comparing total emissions between countries isn't a fair comparison though both because of development and geographic and population size. You have to look at per capita and per gdp, as well as looking at the trends. China's per capita and per GDP are currently lower than the US, but it's trending rapidly in the wrong direction, nevermind non-GHG pollution issues.

You're right, it isn't fair; and this unfairness is part of what policy-makers have to deal with (e.g. Henry Shue's Climate Justice and Simon Caney's "Human Rights, Responsibilities, and Climate Change").

Unfortunately, the climate doesn't give a shit about differences in GDP. Even if the U.S. has decreased, it's unfair to ask developing countries to forsake the benefits of industrialization unless Western powers are willing to help offset the losses.

The US needs to do what is best for the US, because anything else is suicide.

If the U.S. acts in other countries' interests, but other countries continue to act in their own interests, then you're right. That's why we need global communication. At this point, national interests have a limited time table.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

how about you guys take your fuckin' walls of jabber to that ein and dak thread or whatever the hell it was called.

Oh and Merry Christmas 'ya cunts.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... this dude and his sandwich are clearly a threat to the state of California. Smh, beta males who have obviously been slapped around or somehow scarred when they were younger should not be policing.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1211387668149473281
... imagine how many more would have been dead or injured if not for the guy who swiftly killed that scumbag.

 

[Dak]

Clearly "evidence" to deprive "law abiding citizens" of guns.

 

[CiG]

Gabbard ‘Most Disliked Candidate’ After Voting ‘Present’ on Impeachment.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has become the “most disliked” Democratic presidential candidate ahead of the 2020 election, after she broke with House Democrats last week on articles of impeachment accusing President Donald Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and instead voted “present.”

A week prior to the impeachment vote, Gabbard’s unfavorability rating stood at 23 percent, according to a Morning Consult survey. However, just days after her “present” vote, that figure climbed to 30 percent, making her the field’s “most disliked candidate,” Newsweek reported.

In a statement, Gabbard said that while she believes Trump is “guilty of wrongdoing,” she could not “in good conscience” vote against impeachment.

“I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” Gabbard said.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Beautiful

 

[CiG]

Beautiful