Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Thanks for confirming that "way more" of the money goes to the pro-CC faction. Just a friendly exchange between me & OReilly about trying to uncover the truth by "following the money."

There are way fewer skeptics, but many skeptics are still government funded: Curry, Legates, Pielke, Easterbrook, Lindzen, etc..

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Another interesting link you posted that, as I previously said, totally disputes these consensus numbers. I'll just quote the intro here, and let others who may be interested read the rest (bold emphasis added):

Did you read the conclusion of of the ERL submission?

Conclusions
Using my results for 2013 and 2014, one could argue that over 99.99% of climate scientists publishing
today accept AGW. I would not go that far, for in reviewing thousands of titles and abstracts, it is
possible to misread a few. Moreover, an article might question AGW in its text, even though the title and
abstract do not reveal that questioning.
Nevertheless, the true scientific consensus, i.e. the consensus of acceptance based on the peer-reviewed
literature, in my estimation is bound to be above 99.9%. That is why, to find a single article that explicitly
rejects AGW, one has to search through not the few dozen that the “97% consensus” would imply, but
thousands of articles. To find a single author from 2013 and 2014 who rejects AGW requires reviewing
the work of over 17,000 authors.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Always respect your opinions & comments Mike, but isn't the overwhelming majority of the money going to the consensus view? Although I don't know which side is correct, I don't agree the debate is faux or akin to those involving tobacco or vaccinations.

Thanks Exile. Yes, I'd expect most research funding, especially the money coming from government and university funding agencies, to be going towards the consensus view. They're are far more researchers doing this kind of work (90%+), so it follows they'd have to be getting most of the grants.

And I call it a false debate b/c there is no significant debate in the scientific community. The debate over the reality of rapid climate change is happening in the political arena (and here on CF [emoji6]). This follows the same pattern that played out with smoking. Not exactly identical, but the parallels are there.

BTW, there is still plenty of open questions under investigation. Rates of change, and actual impact in various ecosystems; how much is due to human activity; mitigating strategies, all the way up to various terraforming ideas ... the field is wide and broad.


Why go fast, when you can go slow

[IdoraKeeper]

Regarding the denier side of the debate, the point of view is not about climate change, it's composed of financial and religious vested interests. Any degree of sophistry will be employed in defense of those ends. They are not wrong in that solutions to man caused global warming will destroy what they are desperate to retain and defend. That is the crux of the issue in western society. We need to face up to the real nature of the intransigence of deniers. Any type of change will be resisted unless there is a pay day as a result. They are desperate and frightened and they should be.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Anna09

I don't know about this I am not an expert on the topic but I sure as hell want to believe it's true. But I don't think it's that easy, do you?

No, I don't think it's easy, but will only be harder if the dissenters are intimidated or silenced. I'm the opposite of you -- I hope it's not true, but recognize that it could be!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you read the conclusion of of the ERL submission?

My understanding is that the extent of the consensus is in dispute, but I'll look deeper into it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I am assuming that you do not know about the Donors Trust

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Now | Drexel University

Or the CO2 Coalition

CO2 Coalition | DeSmogBlog


The Happer emails were discussed in some of the media, but not much in the MSM.

Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science | Environment | The Guardian

Another retired academic Frank Clemente, a sociologist from Pennsylvania State University also made a similar agreement.

I'll read your articles, but at first glance I'm not sure what's wrong with funding & otherwise supporting various viewpoints, even when they are found to be disagreeable. All sides of every debate engage in PR & lobbying, but there's too much vilifying & polarization to be productive. Let it all air and let the best ideas win.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Hmmm you did not dig very deep. Here is the president of Heartland defending tobacco interests.



Joe Camel Is Innocent! | Heartlander Magazine

In 1996! They take libertarian positions. Let them speak! It surely didn't do them much good when it came to smoker's rights, right?

[Kenomac]

In three years time, climate change won't matter to us because we'll be following the cruising routes and enjoying warm weather year round.

We've had a couple of cold days here in New England just to remind us of what's just around the corner in January and February.... yuck. Maybe today I'll head out for a bike ride, on the bright side... we don't have any snow so far. 'Jealous of our friends in the Caribbean.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'll read your articles, but at first glance I'm not sure what's wrong with funding & otherwise supporting various viewpoints, even when they are found to be disagreeable. All sides of every debate engage in PR & lobbying, but there's too much vilifying & polarization to be productive. Let it all air and let the best ideas win.

Nothing is wrong with "funding & otherwise supporting various viewpoints", but understand that cherry-picking evidence to match a predetermined viewpoint is not doing science, it's advocacy, lobbying.

So when the issue is a scientific one and the conclusions reached by the scientists themselves are near-unanimous on one side... then the "scientific" viewpoint of a lobbyist doesn't rate equal consideration.

Within the ranks of climate science itself... there simply isn't significant dispute about AGW. It's happening. This "debate" is raging OUTSIDE of the sphere of climate science, between advocates of either position. The debate is the result of a carefully constructed attack intended to discredit the science, and to claim (falsely) that there is serious disagreement about it within the science.

This is a serious, important issue that requires study and expertise, not PR campaigns. This organized vilification of scientists in order to discredit their work is shameful and ignorant. Scientific truth isn't found by fighting in the public arena like an election campaign.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

My understanding is that the extent of the consensus is in dispute, but I'll look deeper into it.

Powell says the consensus is 99.9%, not 97%

[Kenomac]

It looks like the monohull vs multihull debate will continue 100 years from now.

My question: Why are they wearing desert/woodland camo?

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

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Powell says the consensus is 99.9%, not 97%

Jack,

It's obvious to me that neither you or your climate scientist lived in New England last winter.

That's Mrs. Mac and I digging out the stuck Bobcat last winter North of Boston.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack,

It's obvious to me that neither you or your climate scientist didn't live in New England last winter.

It is obvious to me that you have not looked at global temperatures. The eastern portion of North America was an exception. Most of the rest of the world, including my part of the world, was warmer than normal.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is obvious to me that you have not looked at global temperatures. The eastern portion of North America was an exception. Most of the rest of the world, including my part of the world, was warmer than normal.]

I travel far and wide... 'haven't noticed a difference.

But your mind will be changed to "denier" the next time you dig out a Bobcat in 3ft of snow at 0 degrees F.

In Centigrade that translates to... Damn cold.