What do you think of climate change?

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Defining you adversary’s position is the hallmark of a straw man argument.

Your so-called “argument” was that …

…non-scientists … do not have the expertise to evaluate evidence, authority is all we have.

Evaluation of evidence, according to your “argument,” is only possible for scientists. No one else can possibly have the expertise to evaluate evidence, so we must defer to the “authority” of scientists.

Go ahead and try to defend your own argument.

OK, I will. The truth of this premise is easily seen in the medical field. Should a women who just had a mammogram analyze the evidence of the images herself to decide if she has breast cancer? Or should she rely on a trained radiologist? If a man has an EKG to check out his heart, should he look at the traces and decide for himself if he has a right bundle branch block, or should he rely on a physician to read the squiggly lines? In other fields too: Should the average person determine how closely related two people are by looking at their evidence in the DNA files downloaded from ancestry.com, or should they rely on the DNA experts who have made a career out of studying those sequences of A, C, T, and G? It is blatantly obvious that some evidence is incomprehensible to one who has not trained in the specific field.

 

[Theo520]

Ad hominem.

I don’t think you know what the term means.

I backed up my criticism with evidence from the article.

 

[Rob2]

I agree with Pope St John Paul II when he said : " The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related greenhouse effect has now reached crisis proportions as a consequence of industrial growth, massive urban concentrations and vastly increased energy needs. Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment. The resulting meteorological and atmospheric changes range from damage to health to the possible future submersion of low-lying lands. The ecological crisis reveals the urgent moral need for a new solidarity, especially in relations between the developing nations and those that are highly industrialized."

 

[phaster]

I challenge all people to watch this video as you have time…no matter what side you land on.

Climate change doesn’t matter. It will matter when billionaires start installing scrubbers on their massive, tons of pollution factories, when China stops burning so much coal and people stop wearing face masks, and when wealthy property owners start selling their beachfront property.

seems,…

The biggest challenge in keeping Earth from overheating isn’t technical, it’s political

…There is a massive free-rider problem. Under current circumstances, it will always be individually rational to let others cut back on their emissions rather than doing so yourself. The only way to correct this problem is through collective rationality or enlightened self-interest.

www.marketwatch.com/story/why-is-humanity-so-reluctant-to-save-itself-from-climate-change-2020-02-21

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“We have met the enemy and he is us.” - This Day in Quotes

IOW the first issue to surmount is one of pride and/or denial,… only afterwards will it be possible to try to understand the subtle science and the knock on effects in various realms

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/coronavirus-global-epidemics-health-pandemic-covid-19/

…actually given current news it reminds me of plagues mentioned in the book of Exodus (perhaps its the guy upstairs giving people a sign?!)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-tech-battle-with-china-roils-bill-gates-nuclear-venture-11546360589

 

[phil3]

I hate snow so I am down with it

 

[HarryStotle]

OK, I will. The truth of this premise is easily seen in the medical field. Should a women who just had a mammogram analyze the evidence of the images herself to decide if she has breast cancer? Or should she rely on a trained radiologist?

Reading a mammogram isn’t that much of a skill. It does require some training, but not beyond the reach of most capable human beings.

The question, however, isn’t so much the reading of the mammogram, but the prescribed intervention and prognosis. There are many women walking around today that just a decade ago underwent mastectomies that were unnecessary and unnecessarily tortuous.

Merely because someone is more competent than most to read evidence does not mean they will necessarily be better able to prescribe a proper course of action, either medically, morally or pragmatically.

If a man has an EKG to check out his heart, should he look at the traces and decide for himself if he has a right bundle branch block, or should he rely on a physician to read the squiggly lines?

Interestingly I had an EKG done after a fall several years ago that demonstrated to my family doctor that I was having a heart attack. He immediately sent me to emergency at the local hospital where blood tests were done that confirmed no such thing.

Moral of the story what some “experts” take to be sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, other “experts” may not concur with that finding.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

The eugenics movement of the last century had many “experts” in the “genetics” field convinced that appropriate “breeding” or sterilization of human beings ought to be something imposed by the governing authorities for the “betterment” of humanity.

“Experts” may know some things more extensively than the general public but that does not mean they know better what ought to obtain from their knowledge, and neither does it imply that, morally speaking, the “experts” will make appropriately moral decisions regarding subsequent actions.

There are many in the medical field today that will encourage adolescents to undergo gender transition therapy or that support the most recent “innovations” regarding social “progress” merely because it is the trending notion and the social pressure to buy in is enormous. Experts are human, after all.

On Feb 8, 1933 the Oxford Union Debating Society – the intellectual elite of Britain – resolved 275 to 153 that “This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country” in the face of rising threats from Fascism and Communism in Europe and Asia. I wonder how much Hitler and Mussolini were emboldened by the knowledge that the best educated “experts” in Britain would do very little to preserve freedom in the face of death. Moral lesson: Expertise in some area hardly means moral virtues are alive and well among the “experts.”

In other fields too: Should the average person determine how closely related two people are by looking at their evidence in the DNA files downloaded from ancestry.com, or should they rely on the DNA experts who have made a career out of studying those sequences of A, C, T, and G? It is blatantly obvious that some evidence is incomprehensible to one who has not trained in the specific field.

It is also “blatantly obvious” that complete evidence (together with proper moral virtue) is not necessarily available to the “experts.” A little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing. I would suggest that the current state of climate science is closer to “a little knowledge” than it is to a complete picture. The mistake of trusting “experts” with insufficient knowledge has, in the past, been very costly to human beings. Medicine has taken thousands of years to reach a level of general success. Climate science is barely a few decades old.

The requirement of science to test and retest through careful trial after trial with close supervision and error checking ought to be the standard climate scientists are held to, especially since their “conclusions” will have such a detrimental effect on human development.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Reading a mammogram isn’t that much of a skill. It does require some training, but not beyond the reach of most capable human beings.

How many people are so trained that they can read mammograms? Notice that I am not asking how many can be so trained. I said how many are so trained? Not many. Sure, any reasonably intelligent person can be trained to read a mammogram. But until you get that training, you better not be trying to advise women that they do or do not have breast cancer.

Similarly, any reasonably intelligent person can be trained to properly interpret climate change data. But how many actually are? Not many. So until you are so trained, it would be best not to try to conclude that climate change is a hoax.

 

[Ender]

Similarly, any reasonably intelligent person can be trained to properly interpret climate change data. But how many actually are ? Not many. So until you are so trained, it would be best not to try to conclude that climate change is a hoax.

You keep expressing the idea that what is needed to understand climate change is the training necessary to “interpret climate change data” but that’s not it at all. Yes, some criticism would require that level of expertise, but it is simply false to assert that no meaningful objections can be raised with only common sense and an interest in the subject.

Take for example the claim that global warming has led to more frequent and higher intensity hurricanes. It is not necessary to personally collect and graph all the data yourself, others have already done that. It’s only necessary to find the charts and see what the data says, and let’s not pretend that reading bar charts is all that complicated. If one does only that much it is possible to discover that in fact this claim is false.

When all is said and done it is actually surprising how many claims of the global warming crowd turn out to be…unsupported, and if so many of the claims that are easy to address are found wanting it is reasonable to suspect that many of the claims one cannot personally research are less than accurate as well.

 

[Rob2]

I agree with Pope Benedict when he said : “Respect for creation is of immense consequence, not least because creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God’s works, and its preservation has now become essential for the pacific coexistence of mankind. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions?"

 

[EndTimes]

The Globalites claim that they can Cool a planet
for the Fee of only 100 Trillion USD in Taxation,
glommed from the pockets of the already impoverished.

MeanWhile, in the Arctic, an icebreaker - full of ‘scientists’ studying Climate - stuck in the ice -
was just refurbished by another icebreaker - and it got stuck in the ice
and another icebreaker is on its way to help that second icebreaker.

Moral? Follow The Moolah Trail!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Similarly, any reasonably intelligent person can be trained to properly interpret climate change data. But how many actually are ? Not many. So until you are so trained, it would be best not to try to conclude that climate change is a hoax.

You keep expressing the idea that what is needed to understand climate change is the training necessary to “interpret climate change data” but that’s not it at all. Yes, some criticism would require that level of expertise, but it is simply false to assert that no meaningful objections can be raised with only common sense and an interest in the subject.

Take for example the claim that global warming has led to more frequent and higher intensity hurricanes. It is not necessary to personally collect and graph all the data yourself, others have already done that. It’s only necessary to find the charts and see what the data says, and let’s not pretend that reading bar charts is all that complicated. If one does only that much it is possible to discover that in fact this claim is false.

This is a misdirection. (“Look at these charts over here. They are the important ones.”) It is also the result of misrepresenting the scientific claims (as opposed to the media representations of those claims) regarding storms. To see that it is a more complicated question than simply “looking at some bar charts”, read this from NOAA. As you can see the analysis of past storms is more that just a straight-forward count of storms. They take into account the differences in sampling tools in different decades and centuries. When a positive correlation is noted in empirical data, it is often a very small correlation, sometimes stated as statistically indistinguishable from zero. So if you take away the media hype, you see that the scientists themselves are not claiming a very strong past correlation. But they do make a case for an expected rise in that correlation going forward, which is the more significant story.

When all is said and done it is actually surprising how many claims of the global warming crowd turn out to be…unsupported

I’m not sure who you mean by the “global warming crowd”. If it is the media or celebrities, that is one thing. If it is the scientists, that would be another claim altogether. You can’t lump them all together into one “crowd.”

 

[StudentMI]

Coming in late to the party. What do I think? I read an article years ago that sort of put my doubts to rest. Here it is.

Monthly Review | The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming

Yes I know. A socialist magazine! Oh well. He still makes a good case if you read it. I still sometimes question if it’s gonna be as bad as they say but I’m not an expert.

 

[Ender]

To see that it is a more complicated question than simply “looking at some bar charts”, read this from NOAA. As you can see the analysis of past storms is more that just a straight-forward count of storms.

I’m sorry, you are not qualified to make that determination.

You cannot on the one hand say the layman is not capable of making judgments about climate change and then make exactly that kind of judgment yourself. In fact your objection proves my point. This is exactly the kind of analysis we are all quite capable of making.

Also, making a distinction between the media’s claims and those of the scientists is valid but misleading, at least the way you do it. How do you know what “the scientists” believe except by reading about it in the media? You’ve already disqualified yourself from evaluating the validity of what the scientists say so the media must be your only source.

Besides, so many people form their opinions based on media sources that debunking the media is a valuable way to get people to think more critically about the topic. People who learn that the media is largely spinning a yarn are less likely to simply swallow the latest hysterical claim when it emerges.

 

[HarryStotle]

Coming in late to the party. What do I think? I read an article years ago that sort of put my doubts to rest. Here it is.

Monthly Review | The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming

Yes I know. A socialist magazine! Oh well. He still makes a good case if you read it. I still sometimes question if it’s gonna be as bad as they say but I’m not an expert.

That article is 12 years old and the conclusions regarding CO2 and its feedback effects are based upon dated “data” which is no longer supported even by those who proposed the initial conclusions.

A straightforward calculation reveals that when the CO2 in the atmosphere reaches twice the pre-industrial level, the enhanced greenhouse effect alone (i.e., neglecting any response by the earth to the enhanced greenhouse effect) will warm the earth by 1.2 to 1.3˚C. There is no significant controversy among scientists about this part of global warming.

The earth will in fact respond to the increased temperature. This is called “feedback.” There is controversy about the magnitude of the feedback. Analysis that takes feedback into account predicts global warming in the range of 1.5 to 4.5˚C (as indicated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]). Controversies among climate scientists concern the magnitude of the warming, not whether or not it is occurring.

My post # 1759 linked to a video discussing very recent (2020) publications that don’t support anything above 1.5°C by the year 2100. The “climate sensitivity” to feedbacks hasn’t borne out and the modellers themselves are expressing second thoughts about the severity of possible feedbacks.

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

A well-reasoned explication of the current state of the Estimate of Climate Sensitivity (ECS) that shows alarmism isn’t warranted. [How sensitive is the atmosphere?]

 

[StudentMI]

Was just sharing it as the article that convinced me. I remember more his explanation of how it works than the data. I see conflicting claims about what the data shows. What you show says one thing, I read another. As I said I’m not an expert. I’ll trust the experts.

 

[Ender]

Was just sharing it as the article that convinced me. I remember more his explanation of how it works than the data. I see conflicting claims about what the data shows. What you show says one thing, I read another. As I said I’m not an expert. I’ll trust the experts.

Actually, what you are trusting are not the experts, rather they are the people telling you what the experts are saying.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

To see that it is a more complicated question than simply “looking at some bar charts”, read this from NOAA. As you can see the analysis of past storms is more that just a straight-forward count of storms.

I’m sorry, you are not qualified to make that determination.

You cannot on the one hand say the layman is not capable of making judgments about climate change and then make exactly that kind of judgment yourself.

No, I reported the conclusion of the report I cited - a conclusion that was reached by the experts, not by me.

Also, making a distinction between the media’s claims and those of the scientists is valid but misleading, at least the way you do it. How do you know what “the scientists” believe except by reading about it in the media?

You can bypass the media and go directly to NOAA, as I have just done.

 

[Rob2]

The words of Pope Benedict : ”Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for the entire human family. No nation or business sector can ignore the ethical implications present in all economic and social development. With increasing clarity scientific research demonstrates that the impact of human actions in any one place or region can have worldwide effects. The consequences of disregard for the environment cannot be limited to an immediate area or populus because they always harm human coexistence, and thus betray human dignity and violate the rights of citizens who desire to live in a safe environment.”

 

[Theo520]

I read an article years ago that sort of put my doubts to rest. Here it is.

It’s a poor article that battles a strawman. It leads with this claim:

Climate contrarians proclaim that global warming is not occurring at all,

This claim is expressly untrue. Most contrarians believe there is warming, they just question how much is caused by man and whether it will be catastrophic.

Numerous serious studies have analyzed the climate record (data) and derive an ECS (climate sensitivity) for CO2 in the range of 1.5-2C warming.