The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[_EAllusion]

It took me a while to hunt it down, but Mikwut's source for the claim that droughts and hurricanes (among other things) have not worsened recently is the dubious assertion from a political scientist who writes on environmental issues for conservative think tanks made almost 10 years ago. It's nearly a copy/paste of that assertion.

Solid.

[_EAllusion]

Indur M. Goklany, “Weather and Safety: The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010,” Reason Foundation, Policy Study 393, Sept. 2011, http://reason .org/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf.

"Extreme weather" related deaths and "climate" or "climate change" related deaths are two different things. Either you are conflating them, or (even if this source was accepted uncritically), it does not begin to support your assertion. For example, where in this paper does it account for climate's impact on the incidence of malaria?

[_honorentheos]

Vaclav Smil is probably a better source for mikwut to consider who has written extensively on the energy source transition of society from primarily burning wood and other biomasses to coal to oil to the other more modern sources, yet has a realistic skepticism for the ability of society to shake off the inertia of the proven source over the innovation. He is a better qualified skeptic when it comes to so-called green energy with a grounded authoritative perspective on the role of carbon-based energy in the advancement of civilization.

[_canpakes]

I note the irony of quoting Epstein, who works for a 'for profit' think tank. : )

What?!? Since when was argument, logic and evidence waived aside as our vehicles to debate, dialogue and assess truth claims for whether someone earns a living doing something?

You'll have to ask climate change denialists this, mikwut. They’re the ones that have been asserting for more than a few decades that scientists only believe in anthropogenic warming effects because they’re “making money off of it”. That’s why I noted your reliance on Epstein as ironic.

(why is it an issue that) Epstein poses empirical data that shows the benefits to society worldwide of the burning of fossil fuels because he makes money at a think tank.

That something provides an apparent benefit does not mean that it cannot also be detrimental in some way. Epstein’s article presents only what he perceives to be beneficial. His is not a balanced or honest appraisal.

mikwut, at the risk of sounding dismissive, this is a pretty silly argument to make. There's no more connection established here between increased fossil fuel use and decreasing 'climate related deaths' than to claim that increased worldwide consumption of bacon and soda also produces the same result.

Ridiculous. There is a direct connection.

I don’t think that you can prove the direct connection between increased fossil fuel use and decreasing 'climate related deaths' any more forcefully than to claim that increased worldwide consumption of bacon and soda also produces the same result.

Hint: there’s no doubt that the relative cheapness of fossil fuels was a catalyst and helper for rapid societal development, but using a particular energy source doesn’t really prove Epstein’s statement any more so than stating that whale oil or firewood were ‘responsible’ for all societal and technological development prior to 1900, does it?

Has it occurred to you that other factors are likely responsible for this trend, such as better infrastructure, and vastly improved weather forecasting - especially within 'industrialized nations'?

Where do you think the energy for the better infrastructure came from? It was fossil fuels that provided that. Can you provide me with any example of a nation that has better infrastructure and weather forecasting without fossil fuels to do so?

Again, the energy source is replaceable, can still have detrimental effects, and is not directly responsible for reduced “climate related deaths”.

And the study is quite specific about climate related deaths and defining what they are. There is no disingenuous framing.

Then you’ll have no problem providing proof of the claim that outlines a unique aspect of fossil fuels as the responsible factor and demonstrates an inability to develop or maintain additional technological advances without fossil fuels specifically.

Please, proceed with your argument. I’m certainly not beyond convincing if that argument is sound. Keep in mind though, that even proving your claim as 100% accurate - which it is not - does not prove that anthropogenic climate effects are not possible or that fossil fuels do not present certain liabilities which are capable of canceling out their benefits, in the long run.

[_honorentheos]

I would avoid any argument from either side that confuses the need for energy to advance technological progress with the formative nature of the energy source being a permanent feature of said progress. When the world transitioned from wood to coal the infrastructure and industry evolved to use coal and was shaped by the way coal gets converted to useable energy. But the world didn't revert to a level of progress based on biomass and wood power when it transitioned to petroleum-based energy. Certainly the form and energy availability of petroleum energy shaped the tech that used it because that's how design works. And we are where we are technologically because we needed and discovered an alternative to wood, then coal, and even petroleum in the form of nuclear energy to advance to the point we've achieved.

I find the line of argument to be missing the point behind the need to make the next shift in order to keep the world in a state that makes human flourishing possible at a reasonable expenditure of energy. To focus on the costs using petrol has for the environment while neglecting the benefits it's made possible isn't doing justice to the need for addressing climate change as is ignoring this costs and focusing purely on the benefits as if we can no more make the move to future renewables as humanity made the move from wood. There are nuclear submarines for a reason. There will be solar powered cars for a reason. We are confronting climate change because to fail to do so is already forcing agencies to spend more to repair and replace failed infrastructure and damaged resources.

[_Res Ipsa]

Hi Res and E, (canpakes I will address you question in just a bit)

I apologize for questioning and running. This is a very interesting topic and I appreciated the answers to my question I posed. I will get back to that shortly, but at first I need to give my value standard approach to this issue. Others have different value positions on this I understand, but I feel it is important to begin to address this issue from that place. This issue is a scientific issue but it is also a value issue and everyone should be right up front about what value position they take. I agree with the (I know horrible guy) value position of Alex Epstein. I believe human life, thriving, and flourishing, indeed even human happiness is the fundamental value that I approach this issue from. This is a basic and primary value position. I don't know how to convince anyone to accept this value scientifically because it isn't scientific. I simply believe from a basic and primary moral position that human life and its flourishing is primary. I'm certainly biased here I am human right? But it is an embedded moral position for me that I simply have a hard time apologizing for in any way.

Hi mikwut. I don't think anyone has demanded that you apologize. But I would say that "thriving," "flourishing" and "happiness" have no practical use when it comes to the question "What, if anything, should governments do about climate change?" Was humanity not thriving in 1880? Was it not "flourishing"? Were people not "happy?" If you think that there has been a change since the 1880s in any of those variables, how do you know? If you can't measure them, then your whole argument is a non-starter because you can't claim that fossil fuels increased any of those variables. You also, of course, cannot measure them for the counterfactual -- would humanity be happier today if we'd never used fossil fuels.

I think Cam has it right. The opposition to the facts of climate change has nothing to do with the actual facts — it is strongly tied to identity. It requires an admission that the free market can lead to the destruction of civilization, that government intervention can not only be good, but also be necessary, and that the US must cooperate with other nations to avoid disaster. It Also requires an admission that the labs can be right.

For those who still deny that the surface atmosphere is warming and that humans are the major cause of the warming since the late 1800s, that’s a heavy blow to their political identity. No amount of evidence will lead them to admit that human activity is the primary cause.

Ok. So I am a science believer and I have stated my moral position above. So, the surface atmosphere is warming. Very little warming occurred in the 1800s when the industrial revolution was getting into gear, from 1850 to around 1880 there was a rise of approx. .3 degrees celsius, then the temperature cooled from 1880 to 1910 by approx. .4 degrees celsius. The temperature then began to rise again between 1910 to 1940 by approx. .5 degrees celsius. Then between 1940 and the 1970s there was a cooling of approx. .4 degrees celsius. It has been rising since this cooling with controversial interpretations of exactly how much due to el nino in the late 1990s and later in the 21st century. I understand the cooling in the late 1800s was largely due to volcanic activity and sulfate aerosols and volcanic activity were contributing factors to the cooling in the middle of the 20th century. I understand those that are skeptical of CO2 being the primary cause from humans point to the cooling periods as not consistent with that hypothesis.

Your summary of the years and temperature changes is accurate. Your reference to El Nino is misleading. There is no scientific controversy over the effect of the ENSO cycle on the global temperature trends. Because the global temperature rises during an El Nino, new record highs generally happen during or following El Nino years. New record lows, on the other hand, are generally set in.... well, we haven't had one in almost 110 years. Because the trend is unmistakably upward.

I agree wholeheartedly with not denying the data that the surface atmosphere is warming. I approach the position from here with a value position of human life flourishing as my value position. As Alex Epstein points out in his argument for fossil fuels over the last 100 years deaths of humans related to climate has fallen 98 percent. In fact, climate related deaths are almost non-existent to in industrialized countries. With such a rapid increase in population and CO2 emmissions that is remarkable. So I really don't die on a hill of are humans mildly responsible, partly responsible, half responsible, or primarily responsible for the warming. I say be that question as whatever it may we have greatly increased not only human lives, but the flourishing and the thriving of human life over that same period of time of CO2 increase by burning fossil fuels. So I am grateful, I am grateful that my life has been emboldened but such fantastic growth and stimilus. I have had a life that has mainly been one of thinking by practicing law. That has been increased by a great degree because we have sheltered ourselves from the ravages of climate. If that is a political identity that I just can't get rid of due to science denying I don't yet see it in myself. But I know I have changed my position on many deep seated and embedded wrong ideas such as Mormonism so I know I am capable and I like to side my mind as best as humanly possible with reality.

Why do you claim that there has been an increase in human thriving and flourishing? You haven't defined any metrics by which we can measure those things. So, how can you tell?

Were there no lawyers in the 1880s? Were there no great thinkers? You have no idea what your life would have been like without fossil fuels. Yes, it's very likely your standard of living would be lower. But does standard of living dictate thriving or flourishing or happiness? Would you have been less happy? How do you know?

You've also completely ignored the costs of using fossil fuels in the manner we have. Fossil fuels have driven rates of growth and consumption to unsustainable levels. The planet on which we live is very much poorer and depleted than in the 1800s. There is much less resiliency in the ecological systems on which we rely. One examples is pollinators. We now have to truck bees from across the country to California each year in order to pollinate food crops. As stocks of fish that we rely on for food decline, some by 90%, the margin between existing and extinction shrinks dramatically. It's as if we've been charging our technological advances on a carbon credit card, and only now is the bill starting to come due. The weakening of the earth's ecosystems, caused by our fossil fuel consumption, has reduced the ability to respond to climactic changes other than letting species die.

We've also got tremendous variation in who gets the benefits of fossil fuel consumption. Saudia Arabia -- doing well. Syria -- pounded by weaponry made possible by the use of fossil fuels -- not so much. It's created an unstable situation where much of the world aspires to raise its standard of living to first world levels, but there simply are not enough resources to do that.

So our disagreement probably falls with your statement of the destruction of civilization. You stated the free market would lead to this. I can only assume that you mean the continued burning of fossil fuels by the free market rather than government intervention by I suppose green alternatives. I need you to be more specific.

Well, that's not really what I said, which is why I didn't get specific. My point was that people do not want to believe that just going about their normal, everyday lives will result in "bad things." I used the baddest thing I could think of to illustrate that effect.

But it is true that when natural resources are treated as "free," market forces can lead people to destroy them. Bison hunts in the early days of the railroad are a prime example. The market works only when the actual costs are priced into the goods or services. We've seen this at work with water pollution. When dumping waste into a river was free, the result was contaminated waterways. We had a river that caught fire, several times. Locally, Lake Washington was at one time heavily contaminated with sewage. Why? Because using the lake as a sewage dump was free.

The market simply ignores the harm that continuing to dump greenhouse gases into the air will cause. Those costs are not priced into the cost of fossil fuels. The market is a system for generating and distributing goods and services. It doesn't give a crap who lives and who dies. It doesn't care whether we all live or die. Market forces are extremely powerful, and we should all be able to recognize cases of market failure like the cost of a good or service failing to incorporate harm caused by the good. It's no stretch at all to go from recognized market failures leading to overconsumption and destruction of natural resources to the collapse of civilizations. So, absolutely, market forces can lead to the destruction of a civilization. I would not predict that they will, because at some point the problem is recognized and someone takes steps to correct the market failure. And that someone, almost inevitably, is government.

Also what E said here:

One of the wild things about current global warming denialism is that we're now in observerable rapid temperature increase with significant and observeable negative consequences being caused by that

First, I define negative consequences as human flourishing or human non flourishing. So I can't accept any alarming observable negative consequences. I see the opposite an incredible rising out of poverty, human conditions increases and being better at an enormous rate during the time period in question until present. So I would need those statements made more specific by you or E for me to dig into our disagreements on this further.

You know, it's really cool to pick criteria that only allows consideration of benefits but allows you to completely ignore harm. Bravo, counselor.

You're like a guy on the deck of the Titanic who sees the iceberg ahead, but promotes staying the course. "All I've seen to date is magnificent performance of this incredible ship, with its unprecedented record of safety and luxury, since the time we left the dock. Since this course is what got us here, I see no reason to change it.

if you have a value system that categorically disallows consideration of harm to your fellow humans, I'd suggest your value system needs to be rethought.

Perhaps the most fallacious part of your reasoning is that the past necessarily predicts the future. The iceberg isn't going to hurt the Titanic until the ship hits it. Climate change is a slow process for us humans. Once the harm starts to appear, our ability to avoid further harm is essentially zero. Just like waiting to change the Titanic's course until the moment that the ship first touches the iceberg. The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, the tremendous rate at which we are putting it into the atmosphere, and the time lag between adding CO2 to the atmosphere and the full appearance of the effects, make the approach of waiting until serious harm begins foolish in the extreme.

Second, I believe I would be the one in the position to more justifiably be granted science as my ally and support for. All of that growth and flourishing of human life from the burning of fossil fuels came from mind, science. It is my position that whatever negative consequences or the destruction of civilization you and E are talking about either come from a failure to continue to have faith in mind and science or from a different value position you and E take. You both would have to elaborate for me.

Claiming science as your ally is laughable when what you do is misrepresent the science. Others have shown examples of that. The two most eggregious examples are claiming that James Hansen made claims in the '90s that devastating consequences would occur before 2000. All of the research at that time was focussed on the effects of doubling the concentration of CO2 from pre-industrial levels. Hansen in 1998 that he expected that to occur between 2025 and 2050. Twenty years later, with significant advances in modeling, that's still the expected time frame. And the analysis of harm was focussed on the results of that doubling. But, if we're messing science, let's look at the actual science. Find me any IPCC forecast that predicts devastating consequences by 2000. I can wait.

You also misrepresent the accuracy of forecasts, the practicality of substituting renewable energy for fossil fuels, and the ability to sequester CO2 directly from the atmosphere. You can't claim to be on the side of science while misrepresenting the data.

Science and mind are not magical fairies that have anything to do with faith. Mind created all the evils we see in the world, from holocausts to ripping off the elderly through fraudulent schemes. Science is simply a tool for gathering and testing information. Science already tells us that there's an iceberg ahead, that correcting course is needed, and that the longer we wait, the harder it will be to avoid the iceberg. The notion that we should ignore actual science in the hope that magical fairy science will rescue us down the road is absurd.

by the way, the argument you are making has been labeled "lukewarmist." For the litany of the problems with it, read critical analysis of Lomborg. It always includes misrepresenting the science, although not in the crazy crazy way that FAQs does it.

[snip]

[Guest]

When mikwut points out the tremendous benefits that have come to mankind by the availability of tremendous amounts of relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels (which no one here denies), he misses the entire point of the (perfectly valid) concerns raised by anthropogenic warming caused by our accelerating dumping of known greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, not to mention the exponentially accelerating depletion of the earth's finite resources. The concerns and exposition of the scientific facts presented so excellently by RI, EA canpakes, and others on this thread are readily available and raise valid concerns that have long been obvious to me. I fail to understand why they are not equally concerning and obvious to someone who claims to be as well informed as mikwut claims to be. It is as if he is desperately trying to protect the continuing profits and subsidization of the massive fossil fuel industry!

Furthermore, I don't understand why he so stubbornly persists in the increasingly outdated and misinformed perception that renewal energy sources cannot be economically competitive with increasingly expensive and depleted fossil fuel sources. He must be deliberately avoiding informing himself about current developments in the use of renewables. I recommend reading Reinventing Fire by Amory Lovins.

Oil and coal have built our civilisation, created our wealth and enriched the lives of billions. Yet their rising costs to our security, economy, health and environment are starting to outweigh their benefits. Moreover, the tipping point where alternatives work better and compete purely on cost is not decades in the future – it is here and now. And that tipping point has become the fulcrum of economic transformation. In Reinventing Fire, Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute offer a new vision to revitalise business models and win the clean energy race – not forced by public policy

Category: Business & Economics

A lot of good and fascinating information on this issue is available at the Rocky Mountain Institute site for mikwut or anyone earnestly willing to inform themselves. I wonder what excuse he will come up with for not bothering to do so, or for dismissing Lovins' arguments and conclusions. A lot of what Lovins suggests doesn't necessarily require massive government initiatives and programs or mandates, just that the Government be willing to step aside and allow well informed, enlightened and creative entrepreneurs do their thing. And, perhaps most importantly, stop massively subsidizing fossil fuel companies, some of the most obscenely wealthy and avaricious corporations on earth!

From the RMI site:

New Report Suggests the Speed of the Energy Transition Is Rapid

September 11, 2019 | By Jules Kortenhorst

That the world is engaged in a profound transition in the way we use energy is undeniable. The era of carbon-intensive energy derived from the burning of fossil fuels is coming to an end, and a cleaner, more reliable energy future based on renewables like wind and solar will be the new normal. How long this change will take is, however, still a matter of fierce debate. But a new report from the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Energy, The Speed of the Energy Transition offers compelling evidence that stakeholders in the global energy system—which means all of us—must prepare for change urgently, because it is coming fast.

Two Roads Diverge

The report, principally authored by Kingsmill Bond of Carbon Tracker, Angus McCrone of Bloomberg NEF, and myself, examines a key question: will the energy transition be gradual or rapid? A gradual transition means that oil, gas, and coal remain the dominant energy sources even as renewable energy supply increases at a steady but linear rate. And it means that there is growth in energy demand for fossil fuels—with demand for fossil fuels not reaching its peak for a generation or more—allowing the traditional businesses of energy sector incumbents to continue to flourish. In this transition scenario, we miss the climate change goals of the Paris Agreement, but the global energy sector doesn’t face the near-term prospect of wrenching change.

A rapid transition, on the other hand, means that renewables like wind and solar quickly start to supplant fossil fuels as their supply increases at an exponential rate, following the familiar S-curve growth pattern of new technologies like personal computers and mobile phones. It means that renewables supply all the net growth in global electricity demand, displacing oil, gas, and coal —with demand for fossil fuels peaking in the 2020s —and thus seriously disrupting the traditional businesses of the energy sector incumbents. In the rapid transition scenario, the energy sector will face massive change, but humanity has a chance of achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit climate change to well below 2 degrees.

The question of the timing of the energy transition is a critical one: either the tipping point is right before our eyes in the decade to come, or it is far into the future, beyond the planning horizon of most companies. If stakeholders, whether they are governments setting policy, or businesses making investment decisions, assume a gradual transition while the trajectory is actually a rapid one, they will end up making the wrong decisions. Society will bear the costs of uneconomic investments and stranded high-carbon assets. But equally important, humanity will miss an early opportunity to achieve a sustainable world where the risk of catastrophic climate change is limited.

[_Some Schmo]

What are the odds that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat, evolutionary theory is broadly correct, and there is little evidence that women in aggregate are inherently inferior at math? Riddle me that poindexter. Can't all be the case.

Huh? What the hell are you on about now?

[_ldsfaqs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L530b4nnQ8

The above video shows one of the biggest AGW proponents doing exactly what Leftists here do. Instead of debunking the science Tony Heller exposes, he engages in personal attacks, false ones at that.

This is the video which set off Michael Mann into his personal attack tirade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcAHdmYs0j0

I would also like to point out, that on this forum climate skeptics have been accused of "cherry-picking" data, i.e. using "short" timelines to make our claims. But as I explained previously, that's the OPPOSITE of what we do, that it's YOU who cherry-pick to make your claims. As the above video shows, Mann uses a short period of time to show an increase in warming. And he does that because if he used a longer period, it shows that there is no serious warming trend at all occurring, because the prior period shows much higher warming, and he starts the time at the lowest later period to show an increase.

So, in conclusion...

The second video above shows clearly how the so-called "scientists" deliberately LIE in order to claim man-made warming. The first video shows the same as occurs on this forum, that rather than dealing with the science, to DISPROVE the claims, Leftists instead engage in personal attacks.

Yet, as a "scientist" it should be easy to simply show the science to disprove Tony Heller's claim, and move on. But he knows he can't, so like leftists always do, they engage in personal attacks, just like occurred in my other thread by people on this forum on this issue. No debunking of the Raw Data presented which shows NO WARMING, just a personal attack on Tony Heller and me.

It is the most fascinating thing, to see people attack others for data in it's raw collected form as being "false", but the data that's been manipulated by the so-called "scientists", is the "actual" truth. Shakes ones head.

[_Gray Ghost]

It must be true, after all, you saw it on some crackpot's youtube channel