Trump says keeping 'open mind' on climate change: New York Times

[Padres1969]

Some people live in their own “reality”; what happens outside of it doesn’t matter to them.

Cognitive Dissonance has to be one of the biggest threats of our time.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

For the third time, aren’t you the least bit surprised that so few people have taken these e-mails as proof that MMGW is a hoax? If I were you, I would wonder about that. After all, they have been known for quite a long time. It is not as if this is brand new information that the scientific community or even the meteorological communitiy is just now learning.

Aren’t YOU the least bit surprised that it’s about the DATA?

It’s not about debating or arguing or voting or “the community”. It’s totally about the data.

In fact, in my opinion the data should be under penalty of perjury.

What part of the data do you not understand?

wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/28/steepest-drop-in-global-temperature-on-record/

Steepest drop in global temperature on record.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Aren’t YOU the least bit surprised that it’s about the DATA?

No, I am not surprised. It is what I always believed.

It’s not about debating or arguing or voting or “the community”. It’s totally about the data.

In fact, in my opinion the data should be under penalty of perjury.

What part of the data do you not understand?

wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/28/steepest-drop-in-global-temperature-on-record/

Steepest drop in global temperature on record.

It is called “cognitive dissonance”. You know you should have an explanation of why so many smart people disagree with you, but you don’t have one. And so you change the subject to this irrelevant observation by Anthony Watts. So let me ask you a fourth time, aren’t you the least bit surprised that the world has not recognized your claim that the East Anglia e-mails are proof that global warming is founded on a fraud and is a hoax.

The obvious answer is that those e-mails do not prove that point at all. But I would like to see you try to make that point if you can.

 

[CuriousMike]

Its worth pointing out the whole “99% of scientists say X” is a bit silly, really. A few hundred, or even thousand years ago, those scientists may well have been unanimous in saying the earth is flat, or that earth is the centre of the universe.

Even today, common consensus changes with time. For example, commonly held beliefs about the “unhealthiness” of all types of fat found in food is beginning to change. After-all, our grain-based food pyramid seems to have landed society in the midst of an obesity-crisis…

 

[lynnvinc]

Some people live in their own “reality”; what happens outside of it doesn’t matter to them.

Actually it may. It could boomerang against them and they could be caught in a global warming enhanced wildfire, superstorm, flood, devastating drought, health-harming heatwave, vector disease. Or at the least have to pay higher prices for food, etc, due to global warming enhanced failure of food production. Or higher prices for everything, as higher prices for items harmed by global warming and its many knock-on effect reverberates thru the economy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Its worth pointing out the whole “99% of scientists say X” is a bit silly, really. A few hundred, or even thousand years ago, those scientists may well have been unanimous in saying the earth is flat, or that earth is the centre of the universe…

Your argument does not make sense. You cite instances where supposedly learned men held a belief that subsequently turned out to be wrong. And then you claim that because of these examples, we ought to distrust learned men and women of today.

This conclusion is unjustified. For every instance where scientists got it wrong, there are thousands of instances where the majority of scientists got it right. It is silly to expect that a scientific claim made today and agreed to by most scientists is as likely to the wrong as right. It is vastly more likely to be right.

For those willing to act like scientists (and that could include you and me) you should never be expected to take any scientific claim on faith. The only question should be “is the data compelling?” But it is harder to decide that than it might appear. First you have to gather the data. Then you have to understand the data. Both of these tasks usually require as much expertise as experts in the field. It is silly to say “You don’t need no fancy learning or college degrees to know that the earth is not warming up.”

So for those of us who do not have the time to become experts ourselves, there is no more reliable way to determine scientific truth than to listen to experts. 999 times out of 1000 they will be right, your examples not withstanding.

By the way, the fact that the earth is not flat has been known by sailors for as long as they have sailed the oceans. As far back as biblical times, scientists in Egypt even knew approximately how big the earth was by comparing the length of shadows in distant cites.

 

[CuriousMike]

Your argument does not make sense. You cite instances where supposedly learned men held a belief that subsequently turned out to be wrong. And then you claim that because of these examples, we ought to distrust learned men and women of today.

This conclusion is unjustified. For every instance where scientists got it wrong, there are thousands of instances where the majority of scientists got it right. It is silly to expect that a scientific claim made today and agreed to by most scientists is as likely to the wrong as right. It is vastly more likely to be right.

Please be mindful I didn’t say anywhere at all that we “ough to distrust learned men and women of today.” I simply provided a couple of examples to suggest that what is believed to be true may develop further or be proven as false later on.

That said, I’m curious about vested interests working to ‘alter’ outcomes and produce various false-truths.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Please be mindful I didn’t say anywhere at all that we “ough to distrust learned men and women of today.” I simply provided a couple of examples to suggest that what is believed to be true may develop further or be proven as false later on.

If you did not mean to cast doubt on scientific claims made by experts, then I fail to see what other purpose you examples would have in this thread.

That said, I’m curious about vested interests working to ‘alter’ outcomes and produce various false-truths.

If you really are curious, and not just saying this to hint at a criticism you are unwilling to make overtly, then there is something you can do to satisfy that curiosity. You can do some research on exactly what those adjustments were for and why they were made. If you are referring to the adjustments on raw surface temperature readings, the methodology and algorithms, as well as the raw data, are all in the public domain. You could read up on sampling theory and calibration methods. Or you could just believe what Anthony Watts tells you to believe about this.

 

[lynnvinc]

From a Christian perspective the real issue is to act with prudence. And that means doing whatever one can to reduce their GHG emissions (in ways that do not harm them) just in case the scientists might be right and CC is happening and will have harmful impacts.

As it turns out, reducing GHGs can be done cost-effectively without harm to the economy or people’s pocketbooks at least to a 60 or 70% reduction for Americans, AND reducing such usually entails reducing other harmful pollutants that are known to harm and kill people.

OTOH, continuing down the profligate path of emitting vast quantities of GHGs (and other pollutants) not only harms life on earth, but also the economy and personal finances.

FALSE POSITIVE: IF CC turns out to be wrong, then mitigating it (even tho it be wrong) has many other benefits.

TRUE POSITIVE: IF CC turns out to be right, then mitigating it will help reduce the harms & deaths that would have happened if we had stayed on the profligate path.

TRUE NEGATIVE: IF CC turns out to be wrong and we fail to mitigate it, then we will have still contributed to other pollution and harms to life AND would have missed out on helping the economy and our finances.

FALSE NEGATIVE: IF CC turn out to be right and we fail to mitigate it, there will be tremendous destruction and loss of life, we will have also contributed to other pollution problems and their health and life impacts, and we would have missed out on helping the economy and our finances.

On one extreme of True Positive we have a win-win-win-win situation of mitigating climate change.

On the other extreme of False Negative we have a lose-lose-lose-BIG LOSE situation by failing to mitigate climate change.

I hope and pray the religious and prudent folks among us do right by life on planet earth and choose to mitigate climate change.

 

[CuriousMike]

LeafByNiggle:

If you did not mean to cast doubt on scientific claims made by experts, then I fail to see what other purpose you examples would have in this thread.

No, I was not meaning to cast doubt. I’m simply stating that scientific opinion is subject to change. What we think about CC could develop or be proven otherwise in time.

And no, I’m not making the comments to hint at criticisms I won’t voice outright.

I’m just stating a simple point of view. Not an attack on science, or on any scientist.

 

[tomarin]

That is switching the target to political promoters, as if scientific truth could be changed by the actions of those people. But let us suppose for a moment that all the most influential political types are really hypocrites and choose to have a larger carbon footprint and waste more energy than is necessary. What difference does that make on what scientists say. You don’t have to listen to Al Gore. Just listen to your local weatherman. I don’t know what yours says, but our town our local weatherman (actually several of them) routinely mention global warming as a fact. They are not powerful political types. They are not jetting here and there in their private jets. They are just well-educated meteorologists. So focusing on Al Gore, etc. is just a distraction.

I thought meteorologists tended famously to be skeptical of climate change theories. Is that no longer the case?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I thought meteorologists tended famously to be skeptical of climate change theories. Is that no longer the case?

I don’t think it ever was the case. Meteorologists don’t often comment on climate change, but when they do, they are usually reasonably well-informed.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t think it ever was the case. Meteorologists don’t often comment on climate change, but when they do, they are usually reasonably well-informed.

For what it’s worth, this article in Slate dated from last April, says meteorolgists tend to be skeptical. I’m surprised you hadn’t heard this before, since you seem to follow the issue closely.

 

[lmachine]

For what it’s worth, this article in Slate dated from last April, says meteorolgists tend to be skeptical. I’m surprised you hadn’t heard this before, since you seem to follow the issue closely.

Another reason for the low acceptance rates may have to do with who AMS members actually are. One thing they’re not is all formally educated meteorologists—they’re involved in a variety of weather-related fields (like local emergency management or teaching high school science). Just 32 percent of respondents held a bachelor’s degree or greater in meteorology, and only 37 percent considered themselves experts in climate science. And meteorology degrees may not even help, as they typically do not require coursework in climate change science—though of course that shouldn’t stop meteorologists and weather communicators from accepting the consensus of their more rigorously climate science–focused colleagues.

 

[tomarin]

lmachine:
Yes, meteroologists study the weather, which is distinct from the climate.

 

[Exiled_Child]

There are interesting and mysterious events occurring in Antarctica these days, too, which may very well turn out to be highly significant.

Why is a blue cloud appearing over Antarctica?

csmonitor.com/Science/2016/1203/Why-is-a-blue-cloud-appearing-over-Antarctica

 

[LeafByNiggle]

For what it’s worth, this article in Slate dated from last April, says meteorolgists tend to be skeptical. I’m surprised you hadn’t heard this before, since you seem to follow the issue closely.

I disagree with the conclusion stated in the Slate headline. What they reported was the results of a very specific survey conducted on the members of the American Meterological Society. The results of that survey can only be interpreted correctly in the light of the exact wording of that survey, and the metadata associated with it, such as what the response rate was. For example, if a survey is sent out to 10,000 people and only 2000 people respond, the results of the survey are quite likely reflecting a response bias based on their position. Furthermore, the AMS says this on their membership page:
*Today we have more than 13,000 individual members in nearly 100 countries, over 175 corporation and institutional members, and thousands more authors, presenters, students, teachers, and others representing all levels of the weather, water, and climate community.
*
So clearly you don’t have to be a trained meteorologist to be a member. But if you tighten the definition of meteorologist a little to require a professional primary focus on studying weather issues, my impression is that meteorologists mostly agree with climate scientists. Even if they don’t work in exactly the same fields, they do know enough to understand and respect the work of climate scientists. And many of them (the meteorologists) are capable of reviewing the data in a scientific manner so they can confirm the simpler findings themselves and not have to take the climate scientists totally on faith.

 

[edwest2]

From a Christian perspective the real issue is to act with prudence. And that means doing whatever one can to reduce their GHG emissions (in ways that do not harm them) just in case the scientists might be right and CC is happening and will have harmful impacts.

As it turns out, reducing GHGs can be done cost-effectively without harm to the economy or people’s pocketbooks at least to a 60 or 70% reduction for Americans, AND reducing such usually entails reducing other harmful pollutants that are known to harm and kill people.

OTOH, continuing down the profligate path of emitting vast quantities of GHGs (and other pollutants) not only harms life on earth, but also the economy and personal finances.

FALSE POSITIVE: IF CC turns out to be wrong, then mitigating it (even tho it be wrong) has many other benefits.

TRUE POSITIVE: IF CC turns out to be right, then mitigating it will help reduce the harms & deaths that would have happened if we had stayed on the profligate path.

TRUE NEGATIVE: IF CC turns out to be wrong and we fail to mitigate it, then we will have still contributed to other pollution and harms to life AND would have missed out on helping the economy and our finances.

FALSE NEGATIVE: IF CC turn out to be right and we fail to mitigate it, there will be tremendous destruction and loss of life, we will have also contributed to other pollution problems and their health and life impacts, and we would have missed out on helping the economy and our finances.

On one extreme of True Positive we have a win-win-win-win situation of mitigating climate change.

On the other extreme of False Negative we have a lose-lose-lose-BIG LOSE situation by failing to mitigate climate change.

I hope and pray the religious and prudent folks among us do right by life on planet earth and choose to mitigate climate change.

Who are the global corporations putting billions of tons of pollution into our atmosphere? It ain’t us.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

energytransition.de/2016/04/global-coal-power-capacity-keeps-going-up-utilisation-goes-down/

Ed

 

[lynnvinc]

I disagree with the conclusion stated in the Slate headline. What they reported was the results of a very specific survey conducted on the members of the American Meterological Society. The results of that survey can only be interpreted correctly in the light of the exact wording of that survey, and the metadata associated with it, such as what the response rate was. For example, if a survey is sent out to 10,000 people and only 2000 people respond, the results of the survey are quite likely reflecting a response bias based on their position. Furthermore, the AMS says this on their membership page:
*Today we have more than 13,000 individual members in nearly 100 countries, over 175 corporation and institutional members, and thousands more authors, presenters, students, teachers, and others representing all levels of the weather, water, and climate community.
*
So clearly you don’t have to be a trained meteorologist to be a member. But if you tighten the definition of meteorologist a little to require a professional primary focus on studying weather issues, my impression is that meteorologists mostly agree with climate scientists. Even if they don’t work in exactly the same fields, they do know enough to understand and respect the work of climate scientists. And many of them (the meteorologists) are capable of reviewing the data in a scientific manner so they can confirm the simpler findings themselves and not have to take the climate scientists totally on faith.

I know of meteorologists who deny (or don’t mention) global warming – their TV news programs are full of car and gasoline company commercials, and one had a brother who was involved in the Enron scandal. It took me a while to figure out why he (who seemed like a nice person) was a denialist, then when the Enron scandal broke and I saw he was related to someone involved I got the full picture.

OTOH, meteorologists who work for the gov – the ones I know – do not deny climate change, altho pressure was put on them to silence them during the Bush years, and I suspect that will happen again soon. They call it the chilling effect. One at NOAA wrote anonymously around 2005 how they are afraid for their careers to speak about climate change. And of course some state governors, like the one in Florida (which will be most heavily impacted by CC), have forbidden government officials from speaking of climate change.

However, all that said, meteorologists are NOT climate scientist, and weather is NOT the same as climate.

One National Weather Service meteorologist our Env Studies program had as a speaker started off by saying he is not a climate scientist, but considers himself an amateur on the topic of climate change and does a lot of study in his spare time on it. Then he proceeded to give us a very erudite and informative presentation on climate change, linking it to issues in our region.