Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Fryewe. Ding ding you win the prize for that one.

[boatman61]

This is like listening to a bunch of Sunni and Shia Mullahs interpreting the Koran..

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

One has nothing to do with the other. You're attacking the messenger not the message. Stick with the science. Or continue to distract, distort, confuse, obfuscate. How is Heartland any different from the many politically motivated & funded mouthpieces on the other side?

Heartland uses pseudo science in both its tobacco lobbying and its fossil fuel lobbying.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

L-E's view is most sensible and probably represents a significant majority regardless of politics. Unfortunately the more extreme views are also all too often the loudest, and their proponents are really pursuing another agenda as you point out. Fortunately they're easy to spot, since their views surrounding an extremely complex scientific area are generally black & white, they're too busy with their personal agendas to honestly converse, and they will simply ignore, distract or ridicule dissenters. All you hear is a constant regurgitation of the party line with no discourse when their views are challenged. And then there's the holier-than-thou condescension you can always count on to make themselves feel superior & smart, all under the guise of "critical thinking." Gimme a break.

Unfortunately for those who would prefer to learn more about the actual science, this only serves to undermine their own credibility, and more importantly the credibility of the science they are purporting to advance.

Oh look. More bs.

the scorecard as I see it

Climate Science:
- our best efforts indicate that the amount of CO2 from human activity being put into the atmosphere is likely to cause very serious global problems

Jackdale:
- here's what the science is actually saying (with near infinite patience. Respect)

L-E:
- please listen to the science, it's stupid not to (with zero patience, and often condescending, sorry. Hard not to be with this subject)

Exile & friends:
- there's no scientific consensus
- climate scientists have screwed up/ are deliberately fudging this
- the solution requires massive sacrifice/agrarian dystopia/economic collapse
- there's an (soshulist!) agenda behind this
- can't trust NOAA, NASA, IPCC
- US government conspiracy
- no wait it's the cult of MMGW!
- elitists! won't engage in a "scientific" debate (among non-scientists on a sailing forum, who are themselves just throwing around pseudo-science nuggets from their anti-AGW site of choice)

Kenomac:
- what problem? I like warm

How is Heartland any different from the many politically motivated & funded mouthpieces on the other side?

Heartland Institute is being treated and quoted as a legitimate research organization, though even you acknowledge that they aren't. The fact is that there are some individual scientists who dissent various parts, but there aren't any genuine scientific institutions that have serious disagreement with the "consensus".

Look, I get that you don't like who has been doing AGW advocacy, or what you think they're after. But that doesn't change what's happening.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by boatman61

This is like listening to a bunch of Sunni and Shia Mullahs interpreting the Koran..

But here nobody gets shot or blown up over it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

But here nobody gets shot or blown up over it.

Amen.

Though I'm sure there's a number of folks who won't sit next to me at the pub, if we get onto the subject.

[Celestialsailor]

I know one thing for sure. This thread is disproving its title, "Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years". This thread should be ping-pong(ing)back and forth for the next 20 years...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

But here nobody gets shot or blown up over it.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Amen.

Though I'm sure there's a number of folks who won't sit next to me at the pub, if we get onto the subject.

Depends if you're buying the beers, L-E!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile

One has nothing to do with the other. You're attacking the messenger not the message. Stick with the science. Or continue to distract, distort, confuse, obfuscate. How is Heartland any different from the many politically motivated & funded mouthpieces on the other side?

Originally Posted by fryewe

Because they're on the other side?

Originally Posted by newhaul

Fryewe. Ding ding you win the prize for that one.

Exactly! But this is where the "ignore" strategy kicks in . . . in order to continue distracting, distorting, confusing, obfuscating that is.

[LLCoolDave]

Generally I'm fairly pessimistic about the fate of humanity but this documentary has some good ideas. This is by the founder of 5 hour energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY7f1t9y9a0

[Exile]

Ah yes, more of a view of the issue as it most suits us to see it . . . . Lemme see if I can balance the hysteria out a bit:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh look. A more bs realistic and honest approach.

the scorecard as I at least half of the planet's population sees it

Climate Science:
- our the best efforts of a divided scientific community in an area of science that is still not well understood may indicate that the amount of CO2 from human activity being put into the atmosphere is likely to may theoretically cause very serious global problems that remain not well understood

Jackdale:
- here's what many from the mainstream science establishment are actually saying (with near infinite single-minded patience zeal which I Respect because it makes me feel better about my own dogmatic views that I don't feel comfortable being challenged on. )

L-E:
- please listen to the mainstream science as I see it from the IPCC reports whether I've read them or not, it's stupid not to look at any well-established science to the contrary (with zero patience a closed mind, and often condescending because it makes me feel good, not sorry. Hard not to be with this subject or any other which doesn't line up with all the talking points I have always been convinced must be correct)

Exile & friends:
- there's no not nearly the scientific consensus we've been taught to believe from biased media outlets and institutions
- climate scientists have screwed up/ are deliberately fudging this the extremely difficult task of predicting the future from a poorly understood area of science and in a highly charged and controversial political environment beset with huge sums of money from both sides trying to influence an outcome
- the solution requires massive sacrifice/agrarian dystopia/economic collapse reasonable and balanced solutions which the industrialized, democratic, non-totalitarian world has successfully begun to implement
- there's an (soshulist!) agenda behind much of this
- can't trust NOAA, NASA, IPCC under an administration that has a unprecedented record of politicizing executive branch agencies
- US government administration conspiracy effort to mislead
- no wait it's the cult of MMGW! from many who are predisposed towards cultish political movements or have huge financial incentives!
- those who fancy themselves as critical thinking elitists! won't engage in will ignore a "scientific" debate (among mostly non-scientists on a sailing forum who are eligible to vote, who are themselves, just like their friends on the other side, throwing around pseudo-science nuggets from their anti-AGW site of choice)

Kenomac:
- what problem? I like warm

[delete and replace with]

Scientists and advocates from Heartland Institute -- along with scientists and advocates from equally biased institutions on the other side -- is are being treated and quoted as a legitimate research organization, though even you acknowledge that they aren't. The fact is that there are some individual scientists who dissent various parts, but there aren't any genuine scientific institutions except for UAH who's satellites directly refute the entire methodology for taking the Earth's temperature that have serious disagreement with the now thoroughly debunked "consensus".

Look, I get that you don't like who has been doing AGW advocacy, or what you think they're after. But that doesn't change what's happening.

Exactly!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ah yes, more of a view of the issue as it most suits us to see it . . . . Lemme see if I can balance the hysteria out a bit:

A more bs realistic and honest approach.

There's no reality/honesty in telling me what I think. Just a worse case of the dogma you accuse me of.

the scorecard as I at least half of the planet's population sees it

Climate Science:
- our the best efforts of a divided scientific community in an area of science that is still not well understood may indicate that the amount of CO2 from human activity being put into the atmosphere is likely to may theoretically cause very serious global problems that remain not well understood

That's not very far from what i said there, give or take some adjectives and modifiers

Jackdale:
-

L-E:
-

Ad homenems removed

Exile & friends:
- there's no not nearly the scientific consensus we've been taught to believe from biased media outlets and institutions
- climate scientists have screwed up/ are deliberately fudging this the extremely difficult task of predicting the future from a poorly understood area of science and in a highly charged and controversial political environment beset with huge sums of money from both sides trying to influence an outcome
This is where you call all university & science funding pro-AGW, right?

- the solution requires massive sacrifice/agrarian dystopia/economic collapse reasonable and balanced solutions which the industrialized, democratic, non-totalitarian world has successfully begun to implement
I've never said otherwise; it's folks in your camp playing the dystopia card

- there's an (soshulist!) agenda behind much of this
Behind the science? suuuuure.

- can't trust NOAA, NASA, IPCC under an administration that has a unprecedented record of politicizing executive branch agencies
Not my country, but even so I suspect this is not proven, and it's a real headscratcher how misreporting climate science possibly advances this administration's political goals. Really. I will put this down to YOUR religion, I guess. Btw, the I in IPCC is intergovernmental (international). The US administration has politicized it too?

- US government administration conspiracy effort to mislead
see above. Hard to take you seriously when you embrace stuff like this.

- no wait it's the cult of MMGW! from many who are predisposed towards cultish political movements or have huge financial incentives!
Oh yes. What are the huge financial incentives in AGW?

- those who fancy themselves as critical thinking elitists!
If anti-AGW arguments require the above foundation of scientific malpractice plus government conspiracy to be plausible, it doesn't take an elite thinker to find them laughable.

Scientists and advocates from Heartland Institute -- along with scientists and advocates from equally biased institutions on the other side --




I'm happy that you've found enough "science" and malfeasance to prop up your political outlook.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There's no reality/honesty in telling me what I think. Just a worse case of the dogma you accuse me of.

the scorecard as I at least half of the planet's population sees it

Climate Science:
- our the best efforts of a divided scientific community in an area of science that is still not well understood may indicate that the amount of CO2 from human activity being put into the atmosphere is likely to may theoretically cause very serious global problems that remain not well understood

That's not very far from what i said there, give or take some adjectives and modifiers

Jackdale:
-

L-E:
-

Ad homenems removed

Exile & friends:
- there's no not nearly the scientific consensus we've been taught to believe from biased media outlets and institutions
- climate scientists have screwed up/ are deliberately fudging this the extremely difficult task of predicting the future from a poorly understood area of science and in a highly charged and controversial political environment beset with huge sums of money from both sides trying to influence an outcome
This is where you call all university & science funding pro-AGW, right?

- the solution requires massive sacrifice/agrarian dystopia/economic collapse reasonable and balanced solutions which the industrialized, democratic, non-totalitarian world has successfully begun to implement
I've never said otherwise; it's folks in your camp playing the dystopia card

- there's an (soshulist!) agenda behind much of this
Behind the science? suuuuure.

- can't trust NOAA, NASA, IPCC under an administration that has a unprecedented record of politicizing executive branch agencies
Not my country, but even so I suspect this is not proven, and it's a real headscratcher how misreporting climate science possibly advances this administration's political goals. Really. I will put this down to YOUR religion, I guess. Btw, the I in IPCC is intergovernmental (international). The US administration has politicized it too?

- US government administration conspiracy effort to mislead
see above. Hard to take you seriously when you embrace stuff like this.

- no wait it's the cult of MMGW! from many who are predisposed towards cultish political movements or have huge financial incentives!
Oh yes. What are the huge financial incentives in AGW?

- those who fancy themselves as critical thinking elitists!
If anti-AGW arguments require the above foundation of scientific malpractice plus government conspiracy to be plausible, it doesn't take an elite thinker to find them laughable.

Scientists and advocates from Heartland Institute -- along with scientists and advocates from equally biased institutions on the other side --




I'm happy that you've found enough "science" and malfeasance to prop up your political outlook.

In general, your responses suggest a level of naiveté separate & apart from your positions on CC and politics, but we can certainly agree to disagree on that one.

My personal politics certainly informs my outlook based, in my particular case, on which parties & political institutions are primarily propagating the pro-MMGW (if you will) agenda. But my personal politics certainly don't adhere to either party's line. My only point is that personal politics also informs your opinion and Jack's, along with many others who have opinions on both sides of the debate, whether they care to honestly admit it or not. That doesn't mean that yours, Jack's, mine, or anyone else's opinion on the science is in lockstep with our own politics, just that personal politics usually influences.

And how can it not? CC has become one of the most controversial and politicized issues of our time! And the science itself doesn't lend itself to easy answers (even to the scientists), so us non-scientists wind up arguing about everything but the science, or simply use our computer files full of cut-and-paste-ready articles, charts & graphs to opportunistically use the science to advance our personal & political agendas.

But the politics and malfeasance, while admittedly adding to my skepticism, doesn't lead me to reject or deny outright a science-based opinion. My position is simply that the contrary science -- like the sat data you & Jack continue to conveniently ignore but I and others find compelling -- gives rise to valid doubts. Especially when we have been told for so long that MMGW is beyond doubt, and that the planet is in immediate & catastrophic peril. As the science and the technology supporting it evolve, however, my layman's opinion on the science will also evolve. But "questioning" the mainstream science is not necessarily akin (and should not be akin) to "denying" the science, at least not in my case.

There are different views, it's more complex than you & Jack have been representing, and simplified generalizations are misleading and counter-productive. This is why I often give you a hard time, and not because you may happen to hold different opinions!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

My only point is that personal politics also informs your opinion and Jack's, along with many others who have opinions on both sides of the debate, whether they care to honestly admit it or not. That doesn't mean that yours, Jack's, mine, or anyone else's opinion on the science is in lockstep with our own politics, just that personal politics usually influences.

I won't deny having a political viewpoint either, but political viewpoints have no place in a scientific discussion, if that's really what you want to have. Especially when the discussion descends to attacks on the scientific process itself or its practitioners. Such attacks are cornerstones of most unsophisticated anti-AGW arguments.

My position is simply that the contrary science -- like the sat data you & Jack continue to conveniently ignore but I and others find compelling -- gives rise to valid doubts.

I have faith that the best in the business are already fully cognizant of the latest sat data and would be among the first to back down if the data seriously challenge the previous predictions. Or their peers would be tearing them a new one. Science. Respectfully, I don't think that non-specialists in a sailing forum, no matter how intelligent or well-read, are going to have superior insights to the subject matter experts.

You wrote the following in part of your rewrites;

- the solution requires reasonable and balanced solutions which the industrialized, democratic, non-totalitarian world has successfully begun to implement

It's interesting that you would say that. I somewhat agree, except I would say that forward motion is happening (at a glacial pace) despite the organized opposition to the finding of AGW. These very changes are being driven and supported by the same governments you accuse of some sort of collusion or conspiracy in pursuit of an as-yet unnamed nefarious goal.

So - it's amusing that the villains in your scenario are largely responsible for changes you approve of.

I've had the dubious pleasure of, over the past few years, seeing the general position of the anti-AGW crowd move from outright denial to "skepticism". I have no doubt that as time passes, and the theories around AGW are refined, and the predictions shown to have been essentially correct, the anti- position will continue to be walked back.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I won't deny having a political viewpoint either, but political viewpoints have no place in a scientific discussion, if that's really what you want to have. Especially when the discussion descends to attacks on the scientific process itself or its practitioners. Such attacks are cornerstones of most unsophisticated anti-AGW arguments.

And the "cornerstones of most unsophisticated pro-AGW arguments too!" Where have you been??! Remember Dr. Happer and the insinuations of corruption? How about the UAH guys -- Christy & Spencer? Christian end-timers anyone?? And Judith Curry? Somehow only a few of her positions are OK, but only if they comport with more mainstream views. But then her congressional testimony about pressures in the scientific community to conform are discredited because it was before Ted Cruz's sub-committee. C'mon man, can't you see the obvious political bias? I agree with you generally that politics "shouldn't" have any place in a scientific debate, but the reality is that it does and always has in this one -- on both sides. But if you somehow can't see this -- or only see negative political influences from the side you disfavor -- then we're back to square one and a mindless "debate" that goes nowhere.

I have faith that the best in the business are already fully cognizant of the latest sat data and would be among the first to back down if the data seriously challenge the previous predictions. Or their peers would be tearing them a new one. Science. Respectfully, I don't think that non-specialists in a sailing forum, no matter how intelligent or well-read, are going to have superior insights to the subject matter experts.

Agreed. But that's why, at Jack's suggestion, I went to Curry's blog. It seems to attract scientists (at least I think they're scientists) from all & various sides. You are right that this non-scientist could not evaluate such opinions and form my own conclusion, but that and many other readings have swayed me (thus far) that the discrepancy is real. Again, I'm not proclaiming BS on the surface temp data and the modeling, only that there's a significant conflict on how climatologists take the Earth's temperature. This seems fundamental to everything else that is in play. In fact, there are many arguments both challenging & supporting each type of data set, along with the modeling, but I personally find Jack's absolute SILENCE on the issue rather deafening, don't you? How do you know, and why would you assume, that the "best in the business" who rely on the surface data aren't just equally stumped?

You wrote the following in part of your rewrites;

Quote:
- the solution requires reasonable and balanced solutions which the industrialized, democratic, non-totalitarian world has successfully begun to implement

It's interesting that you would say that. I somewhat agree, except I would say that forward motion is happening (at a glacial pace) despite the organized opposition to the finding of AGW. These very changes are being driven and supported by the same governments you accuse of some sort of collusion or conspiracy in pursuit of an as-yet unnamed nefarious goal.

So - it's amusing that the villains in your scenario are largely responsible for changes you approve of.

Except that govt.'s have had little to do with it, at least in the free world. As usual, it's mostly economics, except in places like China with centralized control which mandate another coal-fired power plant each week. Reduced emissions in the western world have largely come about through American fracking technology, hate to tell ya but it's true. It's created a glut of natural gas as a much cleaner substitute for coal to generate electricity. Even the govt.'s auto emissions mandates were driven by citizens' demands for more fuel-efficient and thus less expensive transportation -- not "cleaner" cars for most people, sorry to say, but cheaper transportation. As for alternative energy, the govt's subsidies and commercial investments have mostly been a waste of taxpayer money (Solyndra anyone?), with the exception of the minor amount that goes for research I suppose. I actually wish alternative energy was more viable frankly (as does Keno!), but refuse to let naiveté blind me to reality.

I've had the dubious pleasure of, over the past few years, seeing the general position of the anti-AGW crowd move from outright denial to "skepticism". I have no doubt that as time passes, and the theories around AGW are refined, and the predictions shown to have been essentially correct, the anti- position will continue to be walked back.

If your observations are correct, then it's hard to say whether it's the actual science or the media blitz and official govt. proclamations which have driven it. Time will tell, I guess. Much of the contrary scientific evidence is suppressed I'm afraid, which is exactly what some have tried to do on this thread, unfortunately. This thread has taught me to be as dubious as ever but, as I said, I lack the tools to draw my own conclusions at this point, except that the science is unsettled that is. And if the most dire predictions are ultimately proven correct, I agree with Mike OReilly (believe it or not) that we're likely all screwed no matter what we attempt to do, or our descendants likely are.