Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Maybe you can have your cake and eat it too by superinsulating your house/building/boat to:

Roof: R-60
Walls: R-40
Basement Wall: R-20
Basement Slab: R-10
Windows: R-5

install an air-to-air heat/ventilation recovery system

seal against airleaks to 1 air exchange per hour at 50 pascals air pressure

(working from faulty memory)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superinsulation

You can seal it up as tight as you want, but your body heat is only going to go so far in keeping the rest of your house warm.

If you're all-in on my turn off the heating system challenge..... you'd best get a warmer jacket Nanook.

But... if you're afraid to turn off the heat in order to make the Earth's temperature cooler, maybe you should be on the side of the issue encouraging warmer temperatures? That would certainly make more sense? No?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ah yes, those that fail to conform must just be dumb & ill-informed. No other possible explanation, really. And btw, you must be ALL IN to be considered smart. No room for doubters, skeptics, cynics, deniers, or even questioners when the intellectual elite has pronounced its wisdom on behalf of the rest of us. Even liberals who question AGW need not apply, nor those who accept AGW but disagree with some of its prescribed remedies.

Not quite.

Lots of room for discussion and disagreement. But there's at least a little hubris and anti-intellectualism in thinking that a single non-specialist possesses a scientific argument that is equal or superior to the work of a great many specialists who've spent years working fulltime at this.

I fully appreciate that significant scientific breakthroughs have been made by individuals working alone, and sometimes in the face of current scientific consensus. But climate science and the details of AGW aren't simple clear "eureka!" concepts, it's a huge slog through mountains of data requiring a large, coordinated effort.

[I'm using the collective 'you', not you personally]

If you are advancing arguments for how the current findings could be improved or refined, I'm all ears. If you're using your individual nugget of original or borrowed insight to simply dismiss or downplay the combined opinion of so many experts... that's not a worthy argument. Attacking the integrity and professionalism of an entire branch of science doesn't pass the sniff test either.

If you're dismissing AGW because you don't like the solutions you imagine are necessary... that's a bit like saying 'it's not snowing' because you don't feel like shovelling. Not a scientific argument, surely. So, why not just make that argument - that you're concerned about what might be required and whether it's justified by the expected harm? It's honest and constructive. That's the discussion that should be happening now.

Anyway, disagree all you like, (free country, open forum, etc) but it's not 'elitist' to hold you responsible for the quality of your argument. We all have to meet that standard, to be taken seriously.

Hate to nit-pick again L-E, but bad spelling can make one look . . . errrrr . . . not smart?

Soshulist = SOCIALIST S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-T

I will continue to use that spelling in this context, because it seems that in the US, the only concept of socialism is as some sort of watered-down Communism that's only out to steal your wealth and freedom. It seems like no-one can use the words "we" and "should" in the same sentence without someone else hissing "...soshulism!!".

[edit] heh. the sailblogs beside this thread have something relevent. Might be something else for us to fight about

[Mike OReilly]

Not trying to fan any flames here, but America's anti-intellectual foundations are fairly well known, studied and documented. Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book, Anti-Intellectualism In American Life, is only one in a long line of academic explorations of the subject. I believe the historical thread links the fact of America being significantly founded by people fleeing religious persecution from Europe. A nice summary can be found here:

Library of Congress: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic.

"Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe."

This foundation has been traced to America's propensity for individualism, independence, and the healthy suspicion of authority. But this foundation also carries with it the anti-rationalism inherent in religious belief. Other nations, such as Canada and Australia, can trace national traits (positive and negative) to founding populations. I'm not saying this explains everything about a country's character, but nor should we ignore history.

[Kenomac]

'Seems to be the current Canadian and European view of most Americans. Eh?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

'Seems to be the current Canadian and European view of most Americans. Eh?

You know otherwise, at least as far as I'm concerned.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Btw, didn't I recently read where the scientific community is now questioning how bad certain fats & cholesterols really are for us? Haven't the harmful effects of such foods in our diet been accepted as fact by the scientific consensus for the past couple of decades or so?

YES! And this is actually great example of following the money. The pharmaceutical companies fund most of the research that has claimed to link cholesterols (fats) and heart disease. This apparent link has helped support the sale of the planet's most profitable category of drugs: statins. Rational voices have always pointed out that this link has never been shown in the research, but this has not stopped the drug companies in their quest for massive profits. And they have made massive profits.

What is heartening is that we are now seeing the tide turn. The weight of counter-evidence has built to the point where the findings of the drug company-supported research is crumbing away. The process of science is working. Evidence matters. But this is an excellent lesson in the dangers of mixing private financial interests with public science.

In the case of rapid climate change, the massive financial interests of the status-quo are what is driving the bad science. Much like with the tobacco "debates" of a few decades ago, those who profit from current structures will fight tooth and nail to show why we should do nothing.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

'Seems to be the current Canadian and European view of most Americans. Eh?

You know this is not what I meant. You're just being anti-intellectual .

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You know this is not what I meant. You're just being anti-intellectual .

No... I'm being a dumbass American denier with intellectually superior Canadian roots.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Not trying to fan any flames here, but America's anti-intellectual foundations are fairly well known, studied and documented. Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book, Anti-Intellectualism In American Life, is only one in a long line of academic explorations of the subject. I believe the historical thread links the fact of America being significantly founded by people fleeing religious persecution from Europe. A nice summary can be found here:

Library of Congress: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic.

"Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe."

This foundation has been traced to America's propensity for individualism, independence, and the healthy suspicion authority. But this foundation also carries with it the anti-rationalism inherent in religious belief. Other nations, such as Canada and Australia, can trace national traits (positive and negative) to founding populations. I'm not saying this explains everything about a country's character, but nor should we ignore history.

How do you equate America's founding by religious people fleeing oppression with "anti-intellectualism?" It is axiomatic that one can be both a religious person and an intellectual, right? I think I better understand your reference to so-called "anti-rationalism inherent in religious belief." Perhaps those who favor "creationism" vs. "evolution" might be what you're getting at. But if you sincerely hold such religious beliefs, is believing in creationism not rational for such a person?

I happen not to be a religious person, and despite my skepticism about parts of the CC dogma I tend to fall on the side of science & modern technology. But I don't understand how that would make me more "intellectual" or "rational" than someone with a more religious bent. In any event, the religious bent doesn't seem to comprise a significant justification for those that reject CC, but maybe I'm making an incorrect assumption.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

You can seal it up as tight as you want, but your body heat is only going to go so far in keeping the rest of your house warm.

If you're all-in on my turn off the heating system challenge..... you'd best get a warmer jacket Nanook.

But... if you're afraid to turn off the heat in order to make the Earth's temperature cooler, maybe you should be on the side of the issue encouraging warmer temperatures? That would certainly make more sense? No?

You seem pretty dismissive today. Must be that US anti-intellectualism leaking out

Building heating/air conditioning is one of the largest uses of energy.

Insulating a building is equivalent to putting on a warmer jacket and then being able to turn down the heat or AC. Win-Win

[Kenomac]

I'm going to leave this discussion for a few hours, have a beer and then head down to the rife range.

I'll check back later.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

YES! And this is actually great example of following the money. The pharmaceutical companies fund most of the research that has claimed to link cholesterols (fats) and heart disease. This apparent link has helped support the sale of the planet's most profitable category of drugs: statins. Rational voices have always pointed out that this link has never been shown in the research, but this has not stopped the drug companies in their quest for massive profits. And they have made massive profits.

What is heartening is that we are now seeing the tide turn. The weight of counter-evidence has built to the point where the findings of the drug company-supported research is crumbing away. The process of science is working. Evidence matters. But this is an excellent lesson in the dangers of mixing private financial interests with public science.

In the case of rapid climate change, the massive financial interests of the status-quo are what is driving the bad science. Much like with the tobacco "debates" of a few decades ago, those who profit from current structures will fight tooth and nail to show why we should do nothing.

I frankly never knew that science never actually supported the harmful effects of certain fats & cholesterols, and that it had been falsely supported by the pharma cos. Are you certain about this? Is this more along the lines of certain constituencies' opinion, or is there more solid evidence to support it? I'm not questioning your statement in so much as being quite surprised. I also know that, justified or not, the pharma industry -- along with the oil & insurance cos. -- has become another bogeyman in political discourse. This always makes me rather suspicious.

As for following the money, the same argument you made is also levied against the CC consensus scientists. There is certainly public & private money going to those challenging the CC consensus, but the overwhelming bulk of it seems to be going the other way.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You seem pretty dismissive today. Must be that US anti-intellectualism leaking out

Building heating/air conditioning is one of the largest uses of energy.

Insulating a building is equivalent to putting on a warmer jacket and then being able to turn down the heat or AC. Win-Win

Assuming you can afford to pay the up front costs to accomplish it, that is.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... I think I better understand your reference to so-called "anti-rationalism inherent in religious belief." Perhaps those who favor "creationism" vs. "evolution" might be what you're getting at. But if you sincerely hold such religious beliefs, is believing in creationism not rational for such a person?

Just splitting a hair here. It would be internally rational, yes. But the foundation of this internal system - that the Bible is literal truth - is a pure article of faith (and acknowledged as not provable) - and this of course is irrational in a strictly logical sense, which kind of wipes out anything that builds on it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

There is certainly public & private money going to those challenging the CC consensus, but the overwhelming bulk of it seems to be going the other way.

It has never been credibly established that most climate scientists are willfully doing bad science because of financial incentives/disincentives. Just some imagined scenarios whipped up into plausibility, with not a shred of proof.


No one has stated the size of the "overwhelming bulk of" funding, where it comes from, and how it has pushed for or influenced a pro-AGW outcome. Funding scientists to study AGW is NOT the same as funding scientists to only find information to back a stated position, which is exactly what is occuring on the anti- side.

Likewise, no-one has yet shown how pro-AGW is some sort of make-work boondoggle for otherwise unemployed climate scientists. There are PLENTY of areas in climate to be studied and problems to be tackled, without AGW. Smog, anyone?

Science is studying and going where the data leads, not lawyering to back a given outcome.