Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Lebbo73]

Nice coverup

 

[Claude Balls]

On the other hand, the alarmists fall into these categories

1. scientists whose funding depends on the global warming consensus
2. school children and students whose teachers have brainwashed them to the global warming consensus
3. doctor's wives and other wealthy inner city greens who don't believe in the science of vaccinations

All those sinister solar panel corporations that have been influencing government science-funding for decades!

 

[Claude Balls]

The royalties from those fossil fuels and taxes payed from the business and employees pays for those teachers, infrastructure, medical etc that we see today

Taxes from fossil fuel companies and their employees pay for SOME infrastructure, public service wages etc. And if they went out of business, other companies would take their place.

 

[fishardansin]

it's just an extension of what you note- partisanship. greenies were probably the first to accept AGW wholesale as a thing so naturally those that traditionally oppose environmentalists are still holding out. hippies still oppose GMOs despite the research and evidence and i see AGW as the same deal for many on the Right.

there are also the (kinda) non-aligned contrarians who either oppose big business and are more likely to accept AGW, or contrarians who oppose big government and are more likely to deny it. in a world of vaccines causing autism, hoax moon landings, 911 inside jobs, flat earths and chemtrails, nothing is surprising.

Hippie types who fight GMOs probably annoy me the most. They want everyone to believe the science on climate change (correctly) but then run counter to the science on GMOs. Anti-vax and chemtrails are just on another level. They are not mainstream and not worth mentioning. However, climate change denying "conservatives" and anti-GMO environmentalists are fairly mainstream.

There is nothing we buy from the supermarket that is not a GMO. The best example is all of the "different" vegetables we eat that are really just modified wild mustard. Off the top of my head is broccoli, cauliflower, kale, spinach and mustard. Wild apples and strawberries are gross. Point me to cows and sheep that survive in the wild that are not feral.

What angers me the most is protests against amazing advancements like modifying rice to increase the vitamin A intake for poor Asians. Sorry folks, but that is the ultimate expression of your feels not being able to see past your white privilege.

It is hard having to deal with the alt-right, anti-trans feminists and anti-GMO hippies all at once in this hyper-connected post-internet world. Seeing people use high IQs to warp reality and twist arguments to serve their team, rather than an honest pursuit for the truth.

 

[fishardansin]

Also for those who continue to argue for the MWP. It was warm in Europe and the northern Atlantic. However, it was a cold period in central and eastern Eurasia. This is why it was not a warm period for global average.

What should be your greatest concern about that is tracing the historical record and correlating it to the stability of human civilisation. Here is an amazingly well put together the history of the Turks and their conquest of Anatolia. It shows how the colder climate on the steppe lead to instability and them needing to move. At the same time, there was a warm period in the west and this lead to increasing stability, and consequentially, wealth. The a repeat of the clash that followed following the fallout of climatic changes in the next century is what I fear the most.

 

[its free real estate]

Hippie types who fight GMOs probably annoy me the most. They want everyone to believe the science on climate change (correctly) but then run counter to the science on GMOs. Anti-vax and chemtrails are just on another level. They are not mainstream and not worth mentioning. However, climate change denying "conservatives" and anti-GMO environmentalists are fairly mainstream.

There is nothing we buy from the supermarket that is not a GMO. The best example is all of the "different" vegetables we eat that are really just modified wild mustard. Off the top of my head is broccoli, cauliflower, kale, spinach and mustard. Wild apples and strawberries are gross. Point me to cows and sheep that survive in the wild that are not feral.

What angers me the most is protests against amazing advancements like modifying rice to increase the vitamin A intake for poor Asians. Sorry folks, but that is the ultimate expression of your feels not being able to see past your white privilege.

It is hard having to deal with the alt-right, anti-trans feminists and anti-GMO hippies all at once in this hyper-connected post-internet world. Seeing people use high IQs to warp reality and twist arguments to serve their team, rather than an honest pursuit for the truth.

Equating artificial selection to GMO is sophistry.

 

[fishardansin]

Equating artificial selection to GMO is sophistry.

No it ain't. Genetic engineering is the extreme measures many are in a panick over. Of course, that is also silly

 

[its free real estate]

No it ain't. Genetic engineering is the extreme measures many are in a panick over. Of course, that is also silly

Are you in favour of genetically engineering children?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Also for those who continue to argue for the MWP. It was warm in Europe and the northern Atlantic. However, it was a cold period in central and eastern Eurasia. This is why it was not a warm period for global average.

An examination of cave stalagmites in New Zealand produced the following conclusion: "Wilson et al... found that the proxy temperature record provided by the stalagmite was broadly similar to the climate record of England, exhibiting a period in the early part of the past millennium that was about 0.75°C warmer than it was in the mid-20th-century. And based on that finding they made the broader conclusion that such climatic fluctuations as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are not just a local European phenomenon."

https://www.nature.com/articles/279315a0

There are several similar studies for the region which drew similar conclusions.

Temperature reconstruction on a continent basis for the past 2000 years:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797

 

[Snake_Baker]

An examination of cave stalagmites in New Zealand produced the following conclusion: "Wilson et al... found that the proxy temperature record provided by the stalagmite was broadly similar to the climate record of England, exhibiting a period in the early part of the past millennium that was about 0.75°C warmer than it was in the mid-20th-century. And based on that finding they made the broader conclusion that such climatic fluctuations as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are not just a local European phenomenon."

Hang on, how is this a good basis for contemporary climate modelling?

 

[Roylion]

Teachers rely on peer advised facts, not peer reviewed facts. Just like everyone else in society. They propagate what is believed to be fact.

What is taught in education relies on the prevailing scientific consensus from experts in science. Science curriculums (and to an extent history curriculums) are regularly updated to reflect these changes. Prevailing scientific consensus is backed up by reputable, scientific empirical data, collected through the scientific method, by experts in those fields.

For example, in relation to the history curriculum, I teach that the 'Out of Africa' theory of human evolution is the most supported by the evidence, Hitler died in 1945, the Romanovs were executed in 1918 with no survivors and the remains of Richard III were found underneath a carpark in Leicester

When further discoveries are made and theories subsequently updated and agreed to by the consensus of scientists across a variety of scientific, fields then the curriculum will subsequently be updated.

In regards to climate change, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals suggest that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action. The position of education in teachign clinate change reflects that majority view.

 

[Taylor]

What is taught in education relies on the prevailing scientific consensus from experts in science. Science curriculums (and to an extent history curriculums) are regularly updated to reflect these changes. Prevailing scientific consensus is backed up by reputable, scientific empirical data, collected through the scientific method, by experts in those fields.

For example, in relation to the history curriculum, I teach that the 'Out of Africa' theory of human evolution is the most supported by the evidence, Hitler died in 1945, the Romanovs were executed in 1918 with no survivors and the remains of Richard III were found underneath a carpark in Leicester

When further discoveries are made and theories subsequently updated and agreed to by the consensus of scientists across a variety of scientific, fields then the curriculum will subsequently be updated.

In regards to climate change, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals suggest that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action. The position of education in teachign clinate change reflects that majority view.

I'll reiterate.

They know it is the fact because they have been told it is the fact, they don't know the why.

Now I can't expect primary school teachers who can't differentiate they're, their or there on their Facebook posts to understand the issue in depth, but at least I acknowledge they are preaching the ideology and not the facts.

There is a difference between me saying the facts are wrong and that they aren't teaching the facts, they are teaching the ideology. I don't disagree with either the facts or the consensus, I do have an objection to ideological teaching I picked up from religious schools.

One is far more dangerous than the other.

 

[Taylor]

Perhaps I need to dig deeper.

Ideological thinking doesn't allow for new information or data to alter the thinking because you didn't understand why to begin with.

You become hardwired to see anything against the ideology as being wrong and dangerous so it is shut down.

Basing your position in scientific fact and method means if presented with new data that disagrees you will take it on board and have a comprehensive picture.

Such is why ideological thinking is dangerous

 

[Roylion]

I'll reiterate.

They know it is the fact because they have been told it is the fact, they don't know the why.

As I said, scientific consensus suggests that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Teachers do a fair bit of professional reading. For example secondary teachers who teach climate change or related topics rely on reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for information.

Now I can't expect primary school teachers who can't differentiate they're, their or there on their Facebook posts to understand the issue in depth, but at least I acknowledge they are preaching the ideology and not the facts.

What's the origin of their 'ideology' in regards to climate change?

There is a difference between me saying the facts are wrong and that they aren't teaching the facts, they are teaching the ideology. I don't disagree with either the facts or the consensus, I do have an objection to ideological teaching I picked up from religious schools.

Ideology that relies primarily on a set of scientifically unsupported beliefs taught as fact? No dispute there.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Hang on, how is this a good basis for contemporary climate modelling?

Adherence to a view of the MWP as “localised” permits descriptions of today’s climate as “unprecedented”.

Whatever the truth (and I don’t claim to know what it is), alarmists never quite managed to sell the story to the great majority. A percentage of skeptics became deniers and a percentage of believers became skeptics, largely as a result of the IPCC crying wolf one time too many.

 

[Frank Bunn]

As I said, scientific consensus suggests that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Teachers do a fair bit of professional reading. For example secondary teachers who teach climate change or related topics rely on reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for information.

Consensus? Yeah, nah.

The IPCC claims in its most recent report that it is '95 per cent' sure that 'more than half' of the warming 'since 1950' is man-made. It sounds impressive but it’s a pretty vague claim.

And you really cannot have much of a consensus about the future. Scientists are terrible at making forecasts, especially about complex systems. The climate is a chaotic system with multiple influences of which human emissions are just one.

This is why the the IPCC actually gives a range of possible future temperatures. It thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger.

Then when you look into more detail about the assumptions of these projections the IPCC admits that the top of the range will only be reached if sensitivity to carbon dioxide is high, if world population growth re-accelerates, if carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans slows down, and if the world economy increases its coal use tenfold. Each of these assumptions are implausible so the extreme IPCC projection is very implausible. This is the skeptical middle ground.

Run this by one of your science teachers and tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Roylion]

Consensus? Yeah, nah.

Consensus of scientists.

People (and that includes teachers) know they don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so frequently defer to the conclusions of experts.

Authors of seven climate consensus studies - imcluding Naomi Oreskes. Peter Doran, William Andreagg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook co-authored a paper where the two key conclusions from the paper were:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of the above studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

The IPCC claims in its most recent report that it is '95 per cent' sure that 'more than half' of the warming 'since 1950' is man-made. It sounds impressive but it’s a pretty vague claim.

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15) published by the IPCC on 8 October 2018 includes over 6,000 scientific references, and was prepared by 91 authors from 40 countries. What the report says is that human activities have already contributed 0.8–1.2 °C (1.4–2.2 °F) of warming above pre-industrial levels.

And you really cannot have much of a consensus about the future. Scientists are terrible at making forecasts, especially about complex systems. The climate is a chaotic system with multiple influences of which human emissions are just one.

And hence teachers will explain that any forecasts are from the IPCC. They will also explain what the IPCC is and how relevant reports are authored and what they are based on.

This is why the the IPCC actually gives a range of possible future temperatures. It thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger.

Did I say there was a "consensus of danger"?

What I said was:
"scientific consensus suggests that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

And school curriculums wil reflect exactly that.

What the latest report says is that:

"Climate models project robust differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C. These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean regions (high confidence), hot extremes in most inhabited regions (high confidence), heavy precipitation in several regions (medium confidence), and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions (medium confidence). By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (high confidence), and the magnitude and rate of this rise depend on future emission pathways. A slower rate of sea level rise enables greater opportunities for adaptation in the human and ecological systems of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas (medium confidence).

On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C is projected to lower the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems and to retain more of their services to humans (high confidence).

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C is projected to reduce increases in ocean temperature as well as associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels ( high confidence). Consequently, limiting global warming to 1.5°C is projected to reduce risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries, and ecosystems, and their functions and services to humans, as illustrated by recent changes to Arctic sea ice and warm-water coral reef ecosystems (high confidence).

Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C."

Then when you look into more detail about the assumptions of these projections the IPCC admits that the top of the range will only be reached if sensitivity to carbon dioxide is high, if world population growth re-accelerates, if carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans slows down, and if the world economy increases its coal use tenfold. Each of these assumptions are implausible so the extreme IPCC projection is very implausible. This is the skeptical middle ground.

School curriculums in various studies, ranging from Biology, to Environmental Science to Geography will be altered to again reflect these latest predictions, sourcing the relevant reports as described above.

Run this by one of your science teachers and tell me I'm wrong.

If they address climate modelling as part of their studies on climate change, students will examine various projections and make analysis of their plausibility, according to their discipline of their particular study.

 

[its free real estate]

Peer review and scientific consensus are nonsense, but that doesn’t mean the science of climate change is invalid. The parsimony of deriving from first principles, which you can do with climate science, is what matters.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Whatever the extent of the science, there's an entire generation of western kids coming through that have been primed to meet it head on.

 

[Claude Balls]

Consensus? Yeah, nah.

The IPCC claims in its most recent report that it is '95 per cent' sure that 'more than half' of the warming 'since 1950' is man-made. It sounds impressive but it’s a pretty vague claim.

If you were sick with a complex illness and went to 10 doctors would you take the advice of the 9 who agreed it was illness A, or the sole doc who thought it was illness B?

Now I know that you won’t actually answer this question, as to you the analogy is incorrect. You don’t believe there is any agreement between the 9 doctors.

Do you believe that 8 doctors agree? 7?

If even 6 agreed and 4 didn’t know, but you were free to take the advise of the 6 without negative repercussions in the case that they were wrong, wouldn’t you do it? Of course you would, because it is clearly and obviously the percentage play.

And you really cannot have much of a consensus about the future. Scientists are terrible at making forecasts, especially about complex systems. The climate is a chaotic system with multiple influences of which human emissions are just one.

The consensus is not about the future.

This is why the the IPCC actually gives a range of possible future temperatures. It thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger.

A realistic chance that the climate system will have changed in a terrifyingly harmful way is not cause for great concern?

Then when you look into more detail about the assumptions of these projections the IPCC admits that the top of the range will only be reached if sensitivity to carbon dioxide is high, if world population growth re-accelerates, if carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans slows down, and if the world economy increases its coal use tenfold. Each of these assumptions are implausible so the extreme IPCC projection is very implausible. This is the skeptical middle ground.

Is world population increasing? Might our use of fossil fuels continue to increase? Is their a chance that carbon dioxide sensitivity is indeed high? Are the ocean carbon sinks absorbing less as they become more acidic? The answer to all these questions is yes. They might not turn out as per the upper ranges of the IPCC assumptions, but once again, given the finite nature of our planet and what is at stake, it is the percentage play to take them very seriously as possible, and even likely outcomes.

 

[fishardansin]

An examination of cave stalagmites in New Zealand produced the following conclusion: "Wilson et al... found that the proxy temperature record provided by the stalagmite was broadly similar to the climate record of England, exhibiting a period in the early part of the past millennium that was about 0.75°C warmer than it was in the mid-20th-century. And based on that finding they made the broader conclusion that such climatic fluctuations as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are not just a local European phenomenon."

https://www.nature.com/articles/279315a0

There are several similar studies for the region which drew similar conclusions.

Temperature reconstruction on a continent basis for the past 2000 years:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797

Mann's global average for that period has been accepted. Can you publish a paper disproving it that will get through the peer process?

Science is not done with a graphic on a blog. There are reams of data involved. Then the data, the statistical analysis and then the conclusions that were drawn go through a difficult process to get approved by a scientific journal.

This is not an argument from authority. It doesn't matter what your position is in life. If your science stands up to this rigour it will get through.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Mann's global average for that period has been accepted. Can you publish a paper disproving it that will get through the peer process?

Science is not done with a graphic on a blog. There are reams of data involved. Then the data, the statistical analysis and then the conclusions that were drawn go through a difficult process to get approved by a scientific journal.

This is not an argument from authority. It doesn't matter what your position is in life. If your science stands up to this rigour it will get through.

I'm not in a position to postulate anything, just asserting that Mann's methods in erasing the MWP (and LIA) are highly controversial. That much is well documented and beyond dispute.

 

[fishardansin]

I'm not in a position to postulate anything, just asserting that Mann's methods in erasing the MWP (and LIA) are highly controversial. That much is well documented and beyond dispute.

It isn't though. Just a few right wing bloggers stating it is controversial doesn't make it so.

 

[Ron The Bear]

It isn't though. Just a few right wing bloggers stating it is controversial doesn't make it so.

C'mon mate, he's been the subject of various federal investigations into scientific fraud. Yeah he was eventually cleared, but so was O.J.Simpson and the rest of the Climategate mob. Which is not to suggest he's never done valuable work, as have many controversial scientists on both sides of the debate.

 

[fishardansin]

C'mon mate, he's been the subject of various federal investigations into scientific fraud. Yeah he was eventually cleared, but so was O.J.Simpson and the rest of the Climategate mob. Which is not to suggest he's never done valuable work, as have many controversial scientists on both sides of the debate.

Federal investigations? You mean some of the ultra-right in the US parliaments were spurred on by nuts in the media after emails were hacked and selectively quoted?

C'mon mate. Seriously?