Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 6226 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2017, 11:33:23 am »
In 1950s few people lived in the US south west because of "extreme heat". It is now the fastest growing regions thanks to technology (air conditioners) and the energy needed to keep the air conditioners running.

 You don't see the fallacy of that argument? You "solve" the problem of burning GHG's by burning more GHG's to run AC's.
I think they call that a vicious circle.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2988
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #31 on: August 27, 2017, 11:34:08 am »
The only thing climate change does is give people a boogie man to blame instead of more accurately placing the blame on the people living in the countries that are not able to create or sustain a functional government.

please sir! This board purports to be a troll-free zone...


Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4644
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2017, 01:01:50 pm »
People have been repeating this kind of doom mongering for centuries. There is no reason to believe that the doom mongering today will turn out to be any more accurate than the doom mongering from the the past.

Of course we do. It's called science.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2017, 01:08:19 pm »
Of course we do. It's called science.
So you are saying we did not have science in the 70s when the population bomb and exhaustion of resources was all the rage? Both of those 'predicted by science' disasters failed to materialize.

Science it is a tool that must be used correctly to be helpful. If a field starts to demand ideological conformity by regularly ostracizing colleagues that do not parrot the preferred narrative then that field can no longer claim to be using science.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 01:10:13 pm by TimG »

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3562
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2017, 01:14:45 pm »
TimG ?  What the what ?  ???

It's kind of like Bloody Mary or Baba Yaga or Beetlejuice. Say "climate change" 3 times, and TimG appears.

 -k
Quarantined for your safety.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4644
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2017, 01:21:37 pm »
So you are saying we did not have science in the 70s when the population bomb and exhaustion of resources was all the rage? Both of those 'predicted by science' disasters failed to materialize.

Science it is a tool that must be used correctly to be helpful. If a field starts to demand ideological conformity by regularly ostracizing colleagues that do not parrot the preferred narrative then that field can no longer claim to be using science.

World population has nearly doubled since the 70's. Are you saying population growth is no longer an issue? Do you think the planet can support an infinite number of people? You preface your argument on the principle we have learned nothing and are incapable of doing so.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #36 on: August 27, 2017, 01:37:56 pm »
World population has nearly doubled since the 70's. Are you saying population growth is no longer an issue? Do you think the planet can support an infinite number of people? You preface your argument on the principle we have learned nothing and are incapable of doing so.
No - i am saying that we now know that human populations appear to naturally limit themselves as wealth increases. The net result is human population is expected to peak this century and start to decline without any special government interventions. However, such a outcome was considered inconceivable in the 70s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
Quote
"What needs to be done?" he wrote, "We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. Conscious regulation of human numbers must be achieved. Simultaneously we must, at least temporarily, greatly increase our food production." Ehrlich described a number of "ideas on how these goals might be reached."[6] He believed that the United States should take a leading role in population control, both because it was already consuming much more than the rest of the world, and therefore had a moral duty to reduce its impact, and because the US would have to lead international efforts due to its prominence in the world. In order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or racism it would have to take the lead in population reduction efforts.[7] Ehrlich floats the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area."[8] He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. He suggests incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. He proposes a powerful Department of Population and Environment which "should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment."[9] The department should support research into population control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and prenatal sex discernment (because families often continue to have children until a male is born. Ehrlich suggested that if they could choose a male child this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and sex education should be expanded.
That quote is long but it is useful because it *exactly* mirrors the argument being made by climate change alarmists today.

Now you would like to argue that we learn as we move forward, however, learning requires humility. The arrogance and exaggerated certainty that under pins the climate doom mongers' arguments today suggests that they have learned nothing.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 01:42:35 pm by TimG »

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7250
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #37 on: August 27, 2017, 01:39:47 pm »
It's kind of like Bloody Mary or Baba Yaga or Beetlejuice. Say "climate change" 3 times, and TimG appears.

 -k

Hasn't been on MLW in almost 6 months I figured he'd quit.

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #38 on: August 27, 2017, 01:41:09 pm »
So you are saying we did not have science in the 70s when the population bomb and exhaustion of resources was all the rage? Both of those 'predicted by science' disasters failed to materialize.

Science it is a tool that must be used correctly to be helpful. If a field starts to demand ideological conformity by regularly ostracizing colleagues that do not parrot the preferred narrative then that field can no longer claim to be using science.

Why do you seem to think that the indicators that have been noted by the majority of climate scientists are nothing more than a "preferred narrative"? Not liking the bad news is understandable, but ignoring it is dangerous.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #39 on: August 27, 2017, 01:46:40 pm »
Why do you seem to think that the indicators that have been noted by the majority of climate scientists are nothing more than a "preferred narrative"? Not liking the bad news is understandable, but ignoring it is dangerous.
I judge the quality of science of a field based on how it treats its dissenters. A field where dissenters are treated with respect gives me confidence that the majority conclusions are well founded. A field where dissenters are attacked and have their livelihoods threatened tells me that the majority conclusions are not well founded and the majority fears people who would examine them.

Climate science is a field where dissenters are attacked. This means I have zero confidence in any claims made by the majority. If their claims were really that strong they would not need to respond in the way they do.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4644
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #40 on: August 27, 2017, 01:51:12 pm »
No - i am saying that we now know that human populations appear to naturally limit themselves as wealth increases. The net result is human population is expected to peak this century and start to decline without any special government interventions. However, such a outcome was considered inconceivable in the 70s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_BombThat quote is long but it is useful because it *exactly* mirrors the argument being made by climate change alarmists today.

Now you would like to argue that we learn as we move forward, however, learning requires humility. The arrogance and exaggerated certainty that under pins the climate doom mongers' arguments today suggests that they have learned nothing.

The UN is predicting 9.8 B by 2050 and 11.2 B by 2100 taking into account that fertility rates will continue do decline. Humans are putting severe pressure on the world's ecosystem yet you assume a 50% increase will be sustainable.

I would argue that we learn as we move forward because that is what we have always done. That's why we have things like sewage and water treatment, eliminated lead from gasoline and a thousand other things . You can't just reject what you don't like.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2988
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #41 on: August 27, 2017, 01:59:21 pm »
I judge the quality of science of a field based on how it treats its dissenters. A field where dissenters are treated with respect gives me confidence that the majority conclusions are well founded. A field where dissenters are attacked and have their livelihoods threatened tells me that the majority conclusions are not well founded and the majority fears people who would examine them.

Climate science is a field where dissenters are attacked. This means I have zero confidence in any claims made by the majority. If their claims were really that strong they would not need to respond in the way they do.

outside of outright cranks, charlatans and wackos... name the names! Given your staunch, year upon year, unrelenting position on this, surely there must be literally hundreds of your so-called dissenters who have been attacked... had their livelihoods threatened. Name the names - cause, like there sure haven't been any attacks, vilification and undermining of legitimate scientists by your preferred "denier/do nothing/adapt-r-us" crowd, hey! C'mon, name the names of your poor downtrodden. Name the names!

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #42 on: August 27, 2017, 02:09:59 pm »
I judge the quality of science of a field based on how it treats its dissenters. A field where dissenters are treated with respect gives me confidence that the majority conclusions are well founded. A field where dissenters are attacked and have their livelihoods threatened tells me that the majority conclusions are not well founded and the majority fears people who would examine them.

Climate science is a field where dissenters are attacked. This means I have zero confidence in any claims made by the majority. If their claims were really that strong they would not need to respond in the way they do.

"Zero confidence in any claims made by the majority" Now there's a cop out if I ever heard one. You are talking about the majority of specifically trained scientists. It sounds more like you are attacking that majority in favor of the few dissenters because you don't like what the former are telling you. And for instance, 800,000 sq. km. of ice missing from the Arctic Ocean is not a claim, it's a fact that can be seen clearly from satellite imagery. Trying to ignore such things is kinda like Nero fiddling while Rome burned. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #43 on: August 27, 2017, 02:13:01 pm »
The UN is predicting 9.8 B by 2050 and 11.2 B by 2100 taking into account that fertility rates will continue do decline. Humans are putting severe pressure on the world's ecosystem yet you assume a 50% increase will be sustainable.
You are missing the point. In the 70s people believed:

Quote
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” He later went on to forecast that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s, that 65 million of them would be Americans, that crowded India was essentially doomed, that odds were fair “England will not exist in the year 2000.” Dr. Ehrlich was so sure of himself that he warned in 1970 that “sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come.” By “the end,” he meant “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html?mcubz=0

IOW - the predictions of immediate doom were dead wrong (england did not dissappear). the population problem fixed itself since technology has ensured we more than able to provide food for the population. Now the concern is consumption. I am arguing that problem will likely follow a similar path with incremental social changes and unexpected technology advancements will gradually eliminating it as an issue. That does not mean we don't need to work towards change - it just means the incessant doom mongering and arbitrary deadlines is not helpful.


« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 02:21:51 pm by TimG »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #44 on: August 27, 2017, 02:20:45 pm »
"Zero confidence in any claims made by the majority" Now there's a cop out if I ever heard one. You are talking about the majority of specifically trained scientists.
So what? If "experts" act like political partisans when faced with other experts who disagree then they have obviously forgot their training. The concept should not be hard to understand: people who have confidence in their opinions do not feel the need to bully or attack colleagues that disagree. People who lack confidence do. We should all be concerned if "experts" lack confidence in their own claims.

And for instance, 800,000 sq. km. of ice missing from the Arctic Ocean is not a claim, it's a fact that can be seen clearly from satellite imagery. Trying to ignore such things is kinda like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
Sure it is fact. So what? Why should we care? As soon as you try to answer that question you are not providing facts - you are providing *opinions*.  Here is a article that looks at more facts and suggests the concerns about sea ice retreat are over done: https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/16/what-do-we-know-about-arctic-sea-ice-trends/ . Of course that is an opinion too that uses facts to support it.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 02:24:55 pm by TimG »