Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:All of these guys are big on deregulation and half of them resigned in disgrace while under investigation for being shitbags. But, then again, these are the people you apparently trust because they're not in it for the money unlike those millionaire scientists, no?
This is exactly what makes the typical arguments from folks like faqs or subs so painfully, hypocritically bad. They'll tell you to ignore scientific conclusions based on their claim that scientists are in this solely "for the money", but then they'll tell you that we need this sort of deregulation so that random businesses can make more money.
The most recent temperature reconstruction for the last 2000 years from the Pages2k database, which is kind of a clearinghouse for climate proxy data. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02179-2
TL/DR No evidence in the last 2000 years of any event comparable to the warming over the last 40 years. Warming during the MWP didn’t affect more than about 40% of the earth at the same time. Our current warming affects about 98%.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote: No evidence in the last 2000 years of any event comparable to the warming over the last 40 years. Warming during the MWP didn’t affect more than about 40% of the earth at the same time. Our current warming affects about 98%.
(My emphasis)
I've seen that bolded point restated so many times in discussions of this topic. But that won't stop the climate change deniers citing the Medieval Warming as a 'See? It's happened before, no problem' example over and over and over again.
No wave of heating so generalised and well-nigh universal has hit our planet for millennia. And it's our fault, and it's getting worse.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
And they still have no answer to the question of why the vast majority of climate scientists should be regarded as more untrustworthy than those who have literally trillions of dollars of vested interest in denying the evidence that our heavy reliance on fossil fuels is or can be a problem.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Gunnar wrote:And they still have no answer to the question of why the vast majority of climate scientists should be regarded as more untrustworthy than those who have literally trillions of dollars of vested interest in denying the evidence that our heavy reliance on fossil fuels is or can be a problem.
Because they're LYING LEFTISTS who tell LEFTIST LIES and HATE AMERICA and GOD and are part of a VAST LEFTIST CONSPIRACY.
Man, this issue seems like a gish gallup real quick. I can't keep up when every issue requires lengthy response and Gunnar makes quippy comments that I must be chicken or something.
That impression can happen if one leaves a discussion when it appears they are not doing well.
I wonder if catastrophic global warming was in fact not accurate would you be open minded? Kind of like asking us when we were Mormon if we wanted to know if it was false?
Would you want to know if it is true? I would add that catastrophic is a bit vague, but I like one of RI's post in which he describes how the earth's environment has been a little worse with each generation such that we tend to think what we knew as a child was normal and may miss just how much damage we have done. The thing I worry about is that many catastrophes hit fast after longer periods of slow degradation. Ecosystems to some may look like they are only experiencing some stress not realizing they can survive ok until hitting a certain point and then they can quickly crash with no way to stop it.
The following paper by the the Connolly's seems promising. So what do you do with something like it, just say they are paid shills and move on? Or do you look at the data they provide and make a judgment consistent with that data?
RI gave some detailed answers. Do you agree with him, and if not, why?
No Themis your wrong, I am sure Res took an inordinate amount of time on his research and posting, it indeed becomes as gish gallup.
The point of my paper I cited is that it is peer reviewed and raises serious questions of whether CO2 could be in Thermodynmic Equilibrium. I added the question of how do you sift through differing conluding peer reviewed papers?
I can switch gears though, probably really piss off the Res and Gunnars of the board. My position is in fact more nuanced but my moral position has been made clear. If you add a philosophical position to the question which has been made by Dr. Paul Viminitz the problem is such an intractable collective action problem, no one is going to do anything about it. This problem is simpy put as most people are not going to put any action into the problem unless others similar to them will, which they won't, and circle ends nothing happens.
Therefore, utilizing fossil fuels to lift third world countries and moving as the market and technology allows is the most thoughtful and critical position to take.
ETA: There are other problems that are not so intractable like malaria nets, and other research the money could to.
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
I’m not pissed off, mikwut. I’m just deeply disappointed. I took your invitation to tell you what I thought about the paper as a serious invitation to discus it. I spent a fair amount of time going through the paper step by step and found a number of glaring problems, which I wrote about at length. Instead of responding to anything I wrote, you dismissed it as a gish gallop. I know you’re a smart guy, which means you know that what I wrote about the paper was not a Gish gallop. It was a response completely focused on the paper you invited me to comment on. The fact that the paper is very long and contains a significant number of flaws is not my problem.
I find your moral position to be morally bankrupt. You simply hand waive away the harm to be caused to people who are the least able to defend it, and promote doing more of the thing will cause the harm. It’s easy to be defeatist when the defeat will cause the greatest harm to somebody else.
Please don’t bother extending me similar invitations in the future. Fool me once...
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
mikwut wrote:. Therefore, utilizing fossil fuels to lift third world countries and moving as the market and technology allows is the most thoughtful and critical position to take.
Again, your ‘moral position’ is ignored by the measured effects of fossil fuel combustion byproducts on the environment.
Regarding the “lift third world countries” argument: this might work if only fossil fuel reserves were much more equitably distributed amongst them. As it stands, that is hardly the case, and imposing the fossil-fuel ‘solution’ as the answer to their status ignores much of their economic, political and social realities while locking them into a financial dependency on and forced fealty to first-world political and corporate desires simultaneous with having to deal with the economic fallout of climate issues caused primarily by players outside of their own borders.
I’m not seeing that such a position is necessarily more moral than if third world nations were guided instead into concurrent or greater use of certain alternative energy options that allowed them better control of their own economies and resources.
Maybe the strategy of having to burn the village in order to save it isn't always the most effective or moral route after all.
