Climate Change Predictions

[ceeboo]

Given your answer, let's look at another example: Hillary Clinton's Russia/Trump narrative (She consciously created the garbage) is she a human being that is a low-life with limited value too?

Start another thread if you want to discuss that. This thread is about a climate change video and the topic of climate change.

As the author of the OP, I was taking some liberty. I'm not interested in starting another thread, I was interested to see if you were consistent with your insults or if you might be one of those people who throw insults based on politics shackled by dripping hypocrisy.

I guess I will never know.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Start another thread if you want to discuss that. This thread is about a climate change video and the topic of climate change.

As the author of the OP, I was taking some liberty. I'm not interested in starting another thread, I was interested to see if you were consistent with your insults or if you might be one of those people who throw insults based on politics shackled by dripping hypocrisy.

I guess I will never know.

Right, but it’s basic decency or etiquette to not cause our volunteer mods undo labor parsing out or splitting threads so the topic in OP is maintained. Are you ok, Ceeboo? You seem a little cagier lately.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

If you want, I can ask the question in another forum?

No, what I want you to do is man up and learn something about global warming, since you so arrogantly brought it up.

[Marcus]

...That wasn't the question though (You're 0 for 2 on the questions)...

Posted on page 10 of a thread you started, but in which you won't respond to anything! Hypocrisy dripping, anyone?


Learning something about the topic you posted is excellent advice.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Would you like me to continue slow walking the video, or are you sort of done with it?

So, I guess we’re done parsing out the points the presenter was making? Because there was a lot being claimed that ought to be straightened out.

- Doc

[canpakes]

Would you like me to continue slow walking the video, or are you sort of done with it?

So, I guess we’re done parsing out the points the presenter was making? Because there was a lot being claimed that ought to be straightened out.

- Doc

Perhaps Ceeboo took a closer look at his linked video and realized that pressing the case wouldn’t be fruitful, given its disingenuous content.

So, here we are:

[Some Schmo]

...That wasn't the question though (You're 0 for 2 on the questions)...

Posted on page 10 of a thread you started, but in which you won't respond to anything! Hypocrisy dripping, anyone?


Learning something about the topic you posted is excellent advice.

It's pretty remarkable how Trump's habit of projection is a contagion to his supporters. It's not just a cult of personality, it's a cult of mental illness.

[Res Ipsa]

Hello Ceeboo,

Anyone who has followed both climate science and the war on climate science would recognize the video listed in the OP as an anti-science propaganda tactic that has been deployed by global warming deniers for years and years. Without watching the video, I can predict that it consists of false or misleading (through absence of context) quotes from climate experts other than quotes from their published papers.

It will be a massive exercise in cherry picking.

What it won't include are the actual predictions of climate science, as documented in the reports of the IPCC.

I've seen dozens and dozens of this style of video, and they're all the same. It can be educational to go through the statements one by one and identify how the video creator deliberately misleads the audience. The one example from the Forbes article is a good example. The prediction the scientist made was a pretty good one, as long as the reader understands what the "permanent" in "permanent sea ice" means. But the video creator is betting on his audience not understanding that term, and so creates the misleading impression that the prediction was wildly false.

Ceeboo, if I understand you correctly, you're asking people to draw conclusions based on taking the video at face value. As a guy who makes an effort to be a rational skeptic, that's simply a non-starter for me. If discussing the reliability of the source is out of bounds and investigating and discussing the accuracy of the individual claims in the video is also out of bounds, then the whole exercise is one of guaranteed confirmation bias.

I strongly disagree that evaluating the individual claims in the video is somehow beyond your intellectual capabilities. It's not that hard to do some googling, as canpakes did, to find other sources that provide important context to what the video's creator has chosen to show you. It does take a willingness to admit that a video that, on the surface, appears to confirm preexisting beliefs is actually false and deceptive propaganda. And it does take a commitment to chasing the truth even if it doesn't conform to one's current beliefs.

If you're willing to explore the claims made in the video by the creator, I'd be more than happy take the time and do it with you. But I'm not willing to spend any time at to take a video promoted by an organization that I already know has an extreme political agenda and that plays fast and loose with facts at face value.

Hope you and yours are well.

[ceeboo]

Hello Ceeboo,

Hey RI (I figured this thread would get you back here. That's why I started it - I missed you)

Anyone who has followed both climate science and the war on climate science would recognize the video listed in the OP as an anti-science propaganda tactic that has been deployed by global warming deniers for years and years. Without watching the video, I can predict that it consists of false or misleading (through absence of context) quotes from climate experts other than quotes from their published papers.

It will be a massive exercise in cherry picking.

Totally willing to consider that cherry picking was employed - no problem.

What it won't include are the actual predictions of climate science, as documented in the reports of the IPCC.

I've seen dozens and dozens of this style of video, and they're all the same. It can be educational to go through the statements one by one and identify how the video creator deliberately misleads the audience. The one example from the Forbes article is a good example. The prediction the scientist made was a pretty good one, as long as the reader understands what the "permanent" in "permanent sea ice" means. But the video creator is betting on his audience not understanding that term, and so creates the misleading impression that the prediction was wildly false.

He would have won that bet, as I have no understanding of this "permanent" sea ice thing.

When I read: 'The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," - I will confess that I would think it means that, by 2022, there will be no ice left in the Arctic - And I think I would be in the majority.

Ceeboo, if I understand you correctly, you're asking people to draw conclusions based on taking the video at face value.

I wasn't asking people to do anything (drawing conclusions included) - I found the video of past predictions by experts (even if cherry picked) to be a bit crazy.

As a guy who makes an effort to be a rational skeptic, that's simply a non-starter for me. If discussing the reliability of the source is out of bounds and investigating and discussing the accuracy of the individual claims in the video is also out of bounds, then the whole exercise is one of guaranteed confirmation bias.

Not challenging you: Confirmation bias is part of being human - All of us have this and it will have impact (at leasst to some degree)

I strongly disagree that evaluating the individual claims in the video is somehow beyond your intellectual capabilities.

Thanks! I knew there was at least one person on this board that didn't think I was a complete moron.

It's not that hard to do some googling, as canpakes did, to find other sources that provide important context to what the video's creator has chosen to show you.

But the video creator didn't write the article - I posted the entire article - the article that many people read. As I mentioned before, I think I am in the great majority when I say that this is a very complex subject (and political, like it or not) and I am forced to lean on the experts - Well, as one example, this article was written by an expert.

It does take a willingness to admit that a video that, on the surface, appears to confirm preexisting beliefs is actually false and deceptive propaganda.

Fine - I am willing to completely reject this guy.

And it does take a commitment to chasing the truth even if it doesn't conform to one's current beliefs.

Whether you believe me or not, I don't have current beliefs around CC per say. I lean heavily to the side that there is a problem and that humans have contributed to said problem. How do we battle it? I have no clue, but I can tell you that I am very uncomfortable and extremely leery about government/politicians solving it.

If you're willing to explore the claims made in the video by the creator, I'd be more than happy take the time and do it with you. But I'm not willing to spend any time at to take a video promoted by an organization that I already know has an extreme political agenda and that plays fast and loose with facts at face value.

If you were to take your time to do so, I would most likely read your posts (mostly because I believe you to be credible and balanced) but I don't think I would be engaging you - Why? Several reasons, a couple being I don't know very much at all about the subject and two, have you read this thread?

Hope you and yours are well.

All is great (Thanks) Hope all is well on your end too.

And - Thanks for such a warm and thoughtful post.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Ceebs. I believe what you said about your beliefs regarding global warming. I thought you’d posted something skeptical before, but I might be thinking of someone else.

I get the skepticism about government solutions, but aren’t any practical alternatives. I’m in favor of market-based solutions where they are possible, but global warming is a textbook example of market failure caused by externalities. Markets can work well only where the cost of a product is reflected in its price. But the price of gasoline, oil, coal, natural gas, etc. does not include the costs that global warming imposes on others. If it did, fossil fuels would be much more expensive.

It’s similar to the problem of traffic jams. If I get on the freeway during rush hour, I I slow traffic down by a small amount. Most of the slowdown affects other drivers, so I’m imposing costs on them without having to pay for it. The freeway will have inefficient usage because imposing costs all the other drivers is free for each individual driver. Individual drivers have no incentive to time their travel in a way that makes efficient use of the freeway. The market cannot efficiently allocate use of the freeway unless each driver has to pay for the total cost they impose on the other drivers.

Sometimes there is no practical way to make sure that costs are allocated in a way that would permit a market solution. In a pure market system, I would have to negotiate with every driver using the freeway over how much I would have to compensate them for slowing down their commute when I enter the freeway. But there’s no way to do that without grinding the freeway to a standstill. In economic terms, they say that the transaction costs would eat up the increased efficiency that would be created by incorporating the true cost into the price of using the freeway.

But that doesn’t mean we are doomed to sit in traffic forever. Government can shift some of the cost I would otherwise impose on the other drivers back onto me. One is by metering, where I have to wait longer to enter the freeway when traffic volumes are high. Another is congestion pricing, where I have to pay to use the freeway when traffic is high. Even if government can’t duplicate the individual incentives that a true free market it would provide, it could move the situation closer to an efficient market solution.

With climate, as long as I can drive an ICE vehicle without paying for my share of same to others caused by climate change, I have no market incentive to do anything to avoid the costs of global warming. A market solution would require creating a property right in the atmosphere and then negotiate with everyone in the world to determine the price of emitting greenhouse gases. The transaction costs would be crazy.

But government, whether through taxes on fossil fuels or subsidies of alternatives, can allocate the extra costs that emission of greenhouse in a way that more closely resembles how the market would allocate them if it were able to do.

As long as the cost of greenhouse gas emissions is not included the price of fossil fuels, the market will mindlessly drive humanity to environmental catastrophe. There is no force other than government that has the ability to alter the market incentives to continue adding increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.