Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How come the same guys who were lobbying for tobacco are are the same guys lobbying for fossil fuels?

Because they're being paid? It's their job? Their career? Or maybe they think smoking cigarettes is virtuous? Makes people look cool? C'mon Jack, get real -- you're an educated man. Lobbyists are often just lawyers paid to advocate for a particular issue. The same lobbying firm that represents one particular issue will likely represent others that you or I find distasteful. Like criminal defense attorneys who represent murderers facing the death penalty. People often find these lawyers' roles disturbing even though these same people are often adamantly opposed to capital punishment, but each side and each issue deserves and requires representation. Legal and ethical lines can be and sometimes are crossed, obviously, but that doesn't detract from the need for open societies to have undesirable issues as vigorously represented in courtrooms & legislatures as those that mainstream society happens to approve of. Within reasonable, well-established, common sense limits that is.

Joe Bast, Fred Singer and their colleagues at Heartland. Have you noticed the similarity in tactics?

I'm happy to take your word for it. With the same players at the same institutions it probably makes sense. AND . . . .???? Your frequent attempts (not that you're alone) to attack, discredit, or marginalize the messengers only serve to undercut the strength of the mainstream position on the science. If the opposition's arguments are so weak, so akin to those that tried to claim the earth was flat (to cite one example), as compared to the overwhelming (99% consensus!) strength of the other side, then wouldn't it be best to let them advocate their obviously bogus positions as loudly as possible?? After all, they wound up losing the tobacco argument, right??

Hey - I know that smoking does not cause cancer, I smoked until 43 years ago; I do not have cancer. /sarc

Neither does my 92 year old father who smoked for 53 years -- from the age of 16 until 69 when he quit altogether. In fact he's in remarkably good health. But that doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable degree of certainty in the science that more than definitively links smoking and cancer. For better or worse, the same certainty in climate science just ain't there as of yet, although there are plenty of other excellent reasons that most people agree on to reduce fossil fuel emissions. But should we -- based on some of the science that enjoys a higher degree of certainty -- deploy your Precautionary Principle regardless? Perhaps, but to what degree and what are the downsides? This is the sort of cost-benefit analysis that you and others so adamant about AGW never seem to want to discuss, but will have to be examined if you ever want to move the issue from blogging to a true public consensus.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

For better or worse, the same certainty in climate science just ain't there as of yet, although there are plenty of other excellent reasons that most people agree on to reduce fossil fuel emissions. But should we -- based on some of the science that enjoys a higher degree of certainty -- deploy your Precautionary Principle regardless? Perhaps, but to what degree and what are the downsides? This is the sort of cost-benefit analysis that you and others so adamant about AGW never seem to want to discuss, but will have to be examined if you ever want to move the issue from blogging to a true public consensus.

Actually the AGW certainty is there, you deny it.

Cost benefit is is discussed, you are too blind to see it. For someone who thinks both sides should be considered, you are pretty one-sided.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What?



Ice levels are not increasing!

When the rate of ice melt slows for the reasons discussed in your quote, then there is an increase in ice as opposed to the rate the ice had previously been melting at. That's why you see an upwards blip in the blue line on the graph around the first of June, and then again in the past few days.

Call it an increase or call it a slowing in the rate of decrease. I really don't care. What I didn't "make up" because it all came from your sources is that the rate of melt is consistent with the long-term (30-yr.) average, and the extent of Arctic sea ice has been greater since July 1st than it was in 2012 which had set the previous record. And all of this is happening when you have been busy trying to show that melting ice is due primarily to (supposedly) warmer & warmer temperatures, and misleading us into believing that 2016 is a record year.

If I had been contradicted to this extent by my own scientific sources then I might prefer to engage in pedantry rather than substance too. But last I checked, science doesn't care about your frustrations, nor whether or not you are actually studying your own links prior to posting.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Actually the AGW certainty is there, you deny it.

Only an ideologue would conflate a skeptic with a denier, especially on an unsettled, highly complex scientific issue.

Cost benefit is is discussed, you are too blind to see it. For someone who thinks both sides should be considered, you are pretty one-sided.

Maybe so, but I lack trust in the credibility of the AGW advocates, especially in the manner in which they manipulate facts and attempt to silence critics. There's also way too many pointless attacks on entities and people they see as "villains," when the emphasis should instead be on answering basic questions the laymen public need to better understand the science. You sometimes make an effort at this but there's often little follow through and far too much one-sided propaganda.

The only time I read an attempt at a cost-benefit analysis was Delfin's quite specific critique of the recommendations coming out of the IPCC and Paris. I guess your side didn't approve so the knives came out and Delfin was dispatched. His overall approach may have been confrontational, but his recitations of IPCC numbers on costs to achieve published temp reductions (by the end of the century) went unchallenged. If I missed something here, then by all means correct me. No need for nastiness or more pedantry . . . .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe so, but I lack trust in the credibility of the AGW advocates, especially in the manner in which they manipulate facts and attempt to silence critics. There's also way too many pointless attacks on entities and people they see as "villains," when the emphasis should instead be on answering basic questions the laymen public need to better understand the science. You sometimes make an effort at this but there's often little follow through and far too much one-sided propaganda.

The only time I read an attempt at a cost-benefit analysis was Delfin's quite specific critique of the recommendations coming out of the IPCC and Paris. I guess your side didn't approve so the knives came out and Delfin was dispatched. His overall approach may have been confrontational, but his recitations of IPCC numbers on costs to achieve published temp reductions (by the end of the century) went unchallenged. If I missed something here, then by all means correct me. No need for nastiness or more pedantry . . . .

Delfin or me? That is your choice. I have nothing to offer. He called me an anti-Semite.

He went unchallenged because like Third Day, they are on my ignore list. If that is the company you prefer, you can join them.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

He went unchallenged because like Third Day, they are on my ignore list. If that is the company you prefer, you can join them.

Short fuse these days, Jack.

Did your quad heal? Has the doc put you on harder drugs with some nasty side effects?

You appear not to be able to see it, but Exile's commentary seems to be pretty well balanced, and he is responsive to persuasive, well laid out argument (e.g. see his discussion with mr_f in the now closed thread).

The continuing inability of those who insist AGW is a big problem to support their claims seems to have shortened their fuses. I suspect there is some frustration on the part of the "Post-a-link" group...who can't seem to figure out why others of us can't see obvious truths in those links.

But simply posting those links (with little to no comment) and a seeming unwillingness (or inability) to respond to questions is doing harm to your "cause." Many of the links are to studies that come to no definitive conclusions, but simply argue that "maybe" bad things "could"happen, "if" the assumptions made are correct, and "if" the "modeling" is robust, and "if" the data are comprehensive and accurate. And usually, links are to studies that state that more study is needed, because...you know...we made a bit of progress in understanding an issue, but really don't have a clear understanding of it...and funding is needed, of course.

One other small point...with some frequency, valid points are made by skeptics. Those points are almost always rebutted with vigorous rancor, with arguments filled with fallacies. Why? (I suspect it's because the points ARE valid.) It erodes both the credibility of the poster and does not to advance the argument that AGW is a problem when that happens.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Delfin or me? That is your choice. I have nothing to offer. He called me an anti-Semite.

Oh, I see! Sort of a "you're either with us or you're with the DENIERS" approach. Another "axis of evil" I presume? Except I'm not here to judge personalities or to see who wins a popularity contest, but to try and learn a bit more about the science surrounding CC, along with why a scientific issue has become so politically and in some cases personally divisive. With these limited goals in mind these threads have provided some insight. But then I never had illusions of being able to persuade or being persuaded over to anyone's particular position, although some of the better articulated and more rational posts have certainly been instructive. And once I better understood the motivations, the irrational and purely emotional posters and their positions have been instructive too!

In calling you an anti-semite, Delfin tried to silence your valid opinions concerning complex issues in the Middle East. Cheap shots like that in order to silence or marginalize an opinion one doesn't approve of pretty much suck, doncha think? But what does any of this have to do with the validity of the cost-benefit nos. Delfin cited from the IPCC?

He went unchallenged because like Third Day, they are on my ignore list. If that is the company you prefer, you can join them.

Hate to tell ya, but just 'cause someone's on your ignore list doesn't mean others aren't reading their posts. I've never used an ignore list so whether I am included on your's is entirely your concern not mine. You are rarely responsive in any event, so I suppose it wouldn't matter all that much. And I'll still be able to read your posts & links which are usually informative, albeit all too disappointedly representing only one side.

As for Third Day, I can't say I'm always in agreement but he's obviously a smart (and funny) guy and his concise posts often explain a lot in very few words. Sometimes disagreement can sway one's opinion, and other times it can help solidify why one disagrees. Either way I find it useful and can't imagine either of us not keeping company over it. In fact, I might have to buy a watermaker just so I can try and persuade him to give me a tour of his boat!

[SV THIRD DAY]

Global Temperatures Are Mostly Fake | Real Science

When the Data doesn't fit your Religion...you have two choices.
1) Change Religions
2) Change the Data.

Can you guess what the MMGW Cultists are doing?

Originally Posted by jackdale

He went unchallenged because like Third Day, they are on my ignore list. If that is the company you prefer, you can join them.

I'm extremely honored to be on Jackdale's "Ignore List" for it validates everything we know about the MMGW Cultists and their aversion to seeing points of view that are against their Religion. Next they will order Book Burnings and prosecuting people who's speech they disagree with....opps...already working on prosecuting so are books next?

Oh and Exile...you get that boat tour if you will quote this post so our Good Friend Jackdale will have to deal with what he is hiding from...ha ha ha

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Global Temperatures Are Mostly Fake | Real Science

When the Data doesn't fit your Religion...you have two choices.
1) Change Religions
2) Change the Data.

Can you guess what the MMGW Cultists are doing?




I'm extremely honored to be on Jackdale's "Ignore List" for it validates everything we know about the MMGW Cultists and their aversion to seeing points of view that are against their Religion. Next they will order Book Burnings and prosecuting people who's speech they disagree with....opps...already working on prosecuting so are books next?

Oh and Exile...you get that boat tour if you will quote this post so our Good Friend Jackdale will have to deal with what he is hiding from...ha ha ha

Quoted! The only problem is that, after our little exchange last night, I'm likely also on Jack's ignore list. As you pointed out a LONG time ago, it seems like you have to be ALL in not to be deemed a "denier." Apparently not good enough to accept that AGW exists but to be skeptical about the alarmist stuff. Or to accept some of the alarmist stuff but question the costs vs. benefits to mitigate. Almost like you have to chant the entire mantra or you are OUT! So to that extent you are correct that it is more like religion than science.

Along with (threatened) prosecutions, book banning is already here, thanks to the enlightened folks at the Portland, OR school district and probably others. Except it's more like thought banning, namely any thoughts about the many theories that question the mainstream science. Not sure how you educate children about the scientific method by taking away the very tools they need to engage in the scientific method, but whaddaya I know?

[SV THIRD DAY]

That's the grand Irony...
Just like how evangelical Christians can turn people in their attempts to convert people, so do the MMGW Cultists turn people off by their approach.
But they don't see it. There is a LOT in common with the flaws both groups use. Think about the like characteristics. The Holier than thou attitude, the ridicule and persecution of those that don't accept the Gospel, the self-ridiculousness when questioned. It's why the Religious nature and nomenclature fits so well and yet...they the MMGW Cultists lack the ability to give an honest look in the mirror and deal with the shortcomings of their sales approach. Rather than self reflect on WHY something "True" isn't being believed, they attack those not believing or add them to a Jr High "Block List" to protect their snowflake personalities from having to deal with the horror of not having their views affirmed by all.

This thread is views by many to be a waste...but to the contrary...
It is VERY valuable to understand how the real world works in terms of how people think, what they want to see to buy into something, and as a reality check to see if you have lost your mind. To that end...why would you want to "block" anyone that disagrees with you? Wouldn't you want to see those views even more than the folks who chant your name and bow to you?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The only time I read an attempt at a cost-benefit analysis was Delfin's quite specific critique of the recommendations coming out of the IPCC and Paris....His overall approach may have been confrontational, but his recitations of IPCC numbers on costs to achieve published temp reductions (by the end of the century) went unchallenged. If I missed something here, then by all means correct me.

Here's that 'quite specific' critique. Funny, to me it just seemed like the mindless repeating of one number from ONE short news article, as opposed to any sort of 'analysis'. Unchallenged? Well, I didn't think much of it at the time. He had nothing to add, just kept barking the same number from the same article.

Note that a legitimate cost-benefit analysis includes looking at BOTH the costs and the benefits, and besides championing a short back-of-envelope grade of cost estimate, he had zero interest in acknowledging benefits.

Yeah, you missed a bit.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

That's the grand Irony...
Just like how evangelical Christians can turn people in their attempts to convert people, so do the MMGW Cultists turn people off by their approach.
But they don't see it. There is a LOT in common with the flaws both groups use. Think about the like characteristics. The Holier than thou attitude, the ridicule and persecution of those that don't accept the Gospel, the self-ridiculousness when questioned. It's why the Religious nature and nomenclature fits so well and yet...they the MMGW Cultists lack the ability to give an honest look in the mirror and deal with the shortcomings of their sales approach. Rather than self reflect on WHY something "True" isn't being believed, they attack those not believing or add them to a Jr High "Block List" to protect their snowflake personalities from having to deal with the horror of not having their views affirmed by all.

This thread is views by many to be a waste...but to the contrary...
It is VERY valuable to understand how the real world works in terms of how people think, what they want to see to buy into something, and as a reality check to see if you have lost your mind. To that end...why would you want to "block" anyone that disagrees with you? Wouldn't you want to see those views even more than the folks who chant your name and bow to you?

When I saw today's Dilbert, I immediately thought of this thread.


http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-07-21

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

That's the grand Irony...
Just like how evangelical Christians can turn people in their attempts to convert people, so do the MMGW Cultists turn people off by their approach.
But they don't see it. There is a LOT in common with the flaws both groups use. Think about the like characteristics. The Holier than thou attitude, the ridicule and persecution of those that don't accept the Gospel, the self-ridiculousness when questioned. It's why the Religious nature and nomenclature fits so well and yet...they the MMGW Cultists lack the ability to give an honest look in the mirror and deal with the shortcomings of their sales approach. Rather than self reflect on WHY something "True" isn't being believed, they attack those not believing or add them to a Jr High "Block List" to protect their snowflake personalities from having to deal with the horror of not having their views affirmed by all.

That's because it's all too often a matter of "faith" despite protestations that they are merely pitching the "science." I've had some interesting conversations with evangelicals -- looking at the bible from a historical perspective, comparing text with known objective facts from the period, discussing the impetus for a written moral code at the time, etc. -- but at some point in every discussion when the questions get too specific the conversation inevitably veers over to religious faith, and questions are then answered with the all-knowing, unimpeachable "you just have to believe, and accept that it is a matter of faith."

Come to think of it, didn't we just hear from Jack that "AGW certainty is there, you deny it . . . you are too blind to see it." Doesn't this sound eerily reminiscent of "if only you were willing to see the light you too could be saved?" Except there's no arguing over someone else's religious faith so such answers are worth respecting, whereas with climate science there remain more open-ended questions than answers it seems, and merely taking somebody's word for it is hardly scientific.

This thread is views by many to be a waste...but to the contrary...
It is VERY valuable to understand how the real world works in terms of how people think, what they want to see to buy into something, and as a reality check to see if you have lost your mind. To that end...why would you want to "block" anyone that disagrees with you? Wouldn't you want to see those views even more than the folks who chant your name and bow to you?

Agreed, these threads are most valuable, and for the mostly non-scientist crowd they attract they offer huge insight into the motivations of each side. One part of me simply doesn't understand why people want to silence or block out other's views, but another part of me understands it completely. Posters are here for a lot of different reasons I suppose.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm happy to take your word for it. With the same players at the same institutions it probably makes sense. AND . . . .???? ...After all, they wound up losing the tobacco argument, right??

Um no, the tobacco lobby and their "institutions" managed to muddy the waters, attack the findings and keep the association between tobacco and cancer out of health policy for 50+ years. That's not losing. The tobacco companies paid for a result and they got it.

When you want to do science, you hire scientists. When you want someone to do for AGW what was done for tobacco & cancer ... guess who gets hired. And again, they're delivering.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Here's that 'quite specific' critique. Funny, to me it just seemed like the mindless repeating of one number from ONE short news article, as opposed to any sort of 'analysis'. Unchallenged? Well, I didn't think much of it at the time. He had nothing to add, just kept barking the same number from the same article.

Note that a legitimate cost-benefit analysis includes looking at BOTH the costs and the benefits, and besides championing a short back-of-envelope grade of cost estimate, he had zero interest in acknowledging benefits.

Yeah, you missed a bit.

You guys never seem to disappoint in providing a perfectly timed example that reinforces the point of the current discussion. Found another suitable villain did ya? Must have taken awhile if you had to dig all the way back to p. 270 of a 349 page thread! Sorry you haven't yet overcome your Delfin trauma but wouldn't it be more useful for a change to consider some cost-benefit evidence as opposed to personalities?

Here's what the Bloomberg article Delfin cited had to say (in part):

If the world is serious about halting the worst effects of global warming, the renewable energy industry will require $12.1 trillion of investment over the next quarter century, or about 75 percent more than current projections show for its growth.
That’s the conclusion of a report setting out the scale of the challenge facing policymakers as they look for ways to implement the Paris Agreement that in December set a framework for more than 195 nations to rein in greenhouse gases.
The findings from Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Ceres, a Boston-based coalition of investors and environmentalists, show that wind parks, solar farms and other alternatives to fossil fuels are already on course to get $6.9 trillion over the next 25 years through private investment spurred on by government support mechanisms [taxes]. Another $5.2 trillion is needed to reach the United Nations goal of holding warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) set out in the climate agreement.
* * *
While the figures are large, they’re not as eye-watering as the International Energy Agency’s projection that it’ll cost $13.5 trillion between now and 2030 for countries to implement their Paris pledges . . . .

Paris Climate Deal Seen Costing $12.1 Trillion Over 25 Years - Bloomberg

But hey, what's an extra trillion or two charged to taxpayers when the science is so certain that the benefits will outweigh the costs? As for Delfin's next cited article about how little temp. decrease all these trillions will accomplish, it claims to be a peer reviewed piece which goes through all the promises made by the nations who were part of the Paris accords and analyzes what their respective contributions to lower temps. are estimated to be.

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

These are two expert-opined articles L-E, not unlike the 100's that have been posted for & against various & sundry CC positions throughout these threads. Do you expect others to vouch for or debunk them for you? Isn't it time just to do your own homework?

Good job on your rebuttal of Delfin, btw, but do you really think that not being able to predict costs (errr . . . I mean "investments"), or Paris not being enforceable somehow legitimizes blowing off any attempt to counter these analyses other than trying to marginalize Delfin? But maybe you're still working hard on finding that "official" cost-benefit analysis from the IPCC. I took a brief shot at it and didn't come up with much either. Was probably just "quote-mining" anyway, but I've included some links so you can have a head start at quote-mining me back.

IPCC AR4: 3.5.3.3 Cost-benefit analysis, damage cost estimates and social costs of carbon
* * *
If one wants to determine these pathways through a cost-benefit analysis it is necessary to assess the trade-off between mitigation, adaptation and damages, and consequently, to measure damages in the same monetary metric as mitigation and adaptation expenditures.

OK, so far so good, and encouraging to read that adaptation is part of the equation, but here are some "specifics":

Some argue that it is necessary to specify more precisely why certain impacts are undesirable and to comprehensively itemize the economic consequences of climate change in monetary terms. The credibility of such efforts has often been questioned, given the uncertainty surrounding climate impacts and the efficacy of societal responses to them, plus the controversial meaning of a monetary metric across different regions and generations

Sounds like they're blowing it off too, but that was 2007. So what does AR5 have to say? Couldn't find much in the way of hard numbers or even soft projections, but there is some relevant stuff in section 17.3.2. Economic Decision making with Uncertainty:

Decision making under uncertainty is a central question for climate change policy . . . .

And here I thought everything was so certain . . . .