‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 > 
 
   
 

#95- What You Need To Know About Climate Change A Conversation with Joseph Romm

 
Marten123
 
Avatar
 
 
Marten123
Total Posts:  34
Joined  19-06-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 09:22
 
d0rkyd00d - 13 September 2017 09:04 AM

My analysis on this whole issue is decided. The sun is the main driver of climate not us.

Just curious, what factors or new evidence would make you change your mind?

You’d have to at least acknowledge and then refute all the data showing the sun is the main driver of climate. Pofessor Nir Shaviv’s work seems important to me and would need to be addressed in detail. I’d also need to see more of a handle on clouds. I’d also like to see more science on the conditions of the earth at times when CO2 was much higher. We know that plants and animals lived at those times so why are we thinking CO2 is a pollutant and the apocalyptic destroyer of all things? If there’s more water on the earth, okay - so we build super cool water cities (like Venice with awesome new buildings!!!!). What’s the big deal?

Also it’s important to realize that none of this conversation really matters anyway since we have no reasonable alternatives to fossil fuels anyway. If there’s other genuine options in lieu of fossil fuels I’m interested! Climate change people are NOT solutions based. They are problem focused but literally have no exit strategy AND their data and modeling has flaws in it. Why would any reasonable person sign up to something so ludicrous. At least with Christianity they offer life in heaven and stuff. This religion doesn’t even offer you that - typically aetheists though right! Haha I mean if liberal aetherists were going to create a religion it would be this!! Haha does that answer your question? Thanks and take care!

 
Bardo
 
Avatar
 
 
Bardo
Total Posts:  1
Joined  13-09-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 10:58
 

Such a disappointing podcast… I follow Sam for quite a while now and I’ve always wondered what his ideas are on climate change. I hope his lack of criticism is simply caused by a lack of knowledge. All the points of criticism I have are already mentioned here, I hope Sam reads them and will dive more deeply into this topic.

Please, Sam, invite next time a contrary speaker like some are already mentioned here: Björn Lomborg, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen. Or also physicists Freeman Dyson or Ivar Giaever. Or Roger Pielke on hurricanes. Or Fred Singer, Willie Soon,Roy Spencer. Or Henrik Svensmark who has an interesting theory on how cosmic rays influence our climate. John Christy.

Also this Joseph Romm mentioned he had worked for the Rockefeller Foundation, then you immediately know that this guy will give a very alarmistic view of the situation.

On how the Rockefeller Foundation and other foundations influence public opinion I recommend the excellent documented book ‘Ecology, Ideology and Power’ by Donald Gibson. Read this review on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1SIB7V4QYG1IW/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1590331494

[ Edited: 13 September 2017 11:04 by Bardo]
 
d0rkyd00d
 
Avatar
 
 
d0rkyd00d
Total Posts:  366
Joined  15-03-2016
 
 
 
13 September 2017 11:27
 
Marten123 - 13 September 2017 09:22 AM

You’d have to at least acknowledge and then refute all the data showing the sun is the main driver of climate. Pofessor Nir Shaviv’s work seems important to me and would need to be addressed in detail. I’d also need to see more of a handle on clouds. I’d also like to see more science on the conditions of the earth at times when CO2 was much higher. We know that plants and animals lived at those times so why are we thinking CO2 is a pollutant and the apocalyptic destroyer of all things? If there’s more water on the earth, okay - so we build super cool water cities (like Venice with awesome new buildings!!!!). What’s the big deal?

Also it’s important to realize that none of this conversation really matters anyway since we have no reasonable alternatives to fossil fuels anyway. If there’s other genuine options in lieu of fossil fuels I’m interested! Climate change people are NOT solutions based. They are problem focused but literally have no exit strategy AND their data and modeling has flaws in it. Why would any reasonable person sign up to something so ludicrous. At least with Christianity they offer life in heaven and stuff. This religion doesn’t even offer you that - typically aetheists though right! Haha I mean if liberal aetherists were going to create a religion it would be this!! Haha does that answer your question? Thanks and take care!

Yes, thank you for taking the time to respond. 

As I do with all scientific subjects, I must admit I will defer my judgment to the experts.  When the experts overwhelmingly conclude we were erroneous in believing that humans are driving climate change, then I will latch on to that.  But I do have deep respect for anybody who actually pours through the data and research and reaches a different conclusion.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  86
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 11:51
 
Marten123 - 13 September 2017 09:22 AM
d0rkyd00d - 13 September 2017 09:04 AM

My analysis on this whole issue is decided. The sun is the main driver of climate not us.

Just curious, what factors or new evidence would make you change your mind?


You’d have to at least acknowledge and then refute all the data showing the sun is the main driver of climate.

Why would I have to refute the idea that the sun is the main driver of climate?  Of course it is.  If not for the sun, the surface of the Earth would be much closer to 4K instead of 300K.  The differential heating due to sunlight between the poles and the equator is the main driver of weather patterns, which, in aggregate over space in time are the climate.  Taken at face value, this line or argumentation strikes me as silly—essentially nobody who tries to model the climate ignores the sun and its influence on climate.  As far as I can tell, conventional climatological research *is* all the data showing that the sun is the main driver of climate, but that research also includes greenhouse gases, albedo effects, the locations of continents, orbitological considerations and probably more as additional drivers of climate.  If you mean something more specific than just that the sun plays a role in climate, then spell it out, preferably quantitatively.

 
Marten123
 
Avatar
 
 
Marten123
Total Posts:  34
Joined  19-06-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 12:22
 
mapadofu - 13 September 2017 11:51 AM
Marten123 - 13 September 2017 09:22 AM
d0rkyd00d - 13 September 2017 09:04 AM

My analysis on this whole issue is decided. The sun is the main driver of climate not us.

Just curious, what factors or new evidence would make you change your mind?


You’d have to at least acknowledge and then refute all the data showing the sun is the main driver of climate.

Why would I have to refute the idea that the sun is the main driver of climate?  Of course it is.  If not for the sun, the surface of the Earth would be much closer to 4K instead of 300K.  The differential heating due to sunlight between the poles and the equator is the main driver of weather patterns, which, in aggregate over space in time are the climate.  Taken at face value, this line or argumentation strikes me as silly—essentially nobody who tries to model the climate ignores the sun and its influence on climate.  As far as I can tell, conventional climatological research *is* all the data showing that the sun is the main driver of climate, but that research also includes greenhouse gases, albedo effects, the locations of continents, orbitological considerations and probably more as additional drivers of climate.  If you mean something more specific than just that the sun plays a role in climate, then spell it out, preferably quantitatively.

No. You’re simplifying my statement and reducing it to absurdity and obviousness. But that obviousness is also quite meaningfull and important when specifically framing the limits of this issue. In other words it discounts climate change hysteria. I have given specifics to what I’m referring to in that very same post and of course elsewhere in this thread as well - many of them in conversation with you. Seems strange you’re even saying this considering all that to be honest.

 
d0rkyd00d
 
Avatar
 
 
d0rkyd00d
Total Posts:  366
Joined  15-03-2016
 
 
 
13 September 2017 12:47
 

Another question, Marten, provoked by Map’s response.

So it appears that you are asserting (or assuming) that climate change scientists have not sufficiently isolated human activity as a variable, and other factors like the sun’s cycles are more relevant here.  Are you suggesting that if one looked through all of the literature on climate change, none of the scientists working on this issue have done their due diligence in addressing the role of the solar cycles?  Or are you simply saying there was an error in their methodology when isolating this factor?

 
Marten123
 
Avatar
 
 
Marten123
Total Posts:  34
Joined  19-06-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 12:57
 
d0rkyd00d - 13 September 2017 12:47 PM

Another question, Marten, provoked by Map’s response.

So it appears that you are asserting (or assuming) that climate change scientists have not sufficiently isolated human activity as a variable, and other factors like the sun’s cycles are more relevant here.  Are you suggesting that if one looked through all of the literature on climate change, none of the scientists working on this issue have done their due diligence in addressing the role of the solar cycles?  Or are you simply saying there was an error in their methodology when isolating this factor?

Yes that is correct. Based on Professir Shaviv’s work I would say it is both a lack of due diligence and an error in methodology. On top of that they over-state human effects in their modelings. So they are skewing things on both ends. Honestly it is just awful considering all the hysteria it raises in everyone.

It would seem far more valuable for us to have more work being done on effectively replacing fossil fuels rather than dealing with this Ipcc nonsense.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  86
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 13:27
 
Marten123 - 13 September 2017 12:57 PM
d0rkyd00d - 13 September 2017 12:47 PM

Another question, Marten, provoked by Map’s response.

So it appears that you are asserting (or assuming) that climate change scientists have not sufficiently isolated human activity as a variable, and other factors like the sun’s cycles are more relevant here.  Are you suggesting that if one looked through all of the literature on climate change, none of the scientists working on this issue have done their due diligence in addressing the role of the solar cycles?  Or are you simply saying there was an error in their methodology when isolating this factor?

Yes that is correct. Based on Professir Shaviv’s work I would say it is both a lack of due diligence and an error in methodology. On top of that they over-state human effects in their modelings. So they are skewing things on both ends. Honestly it is just awful considering all the hysteria it raises in everyone.

It would seem far more valuable for us to have more work being done on effectively replacing fossil fuels rather than dealing with this Ipcc nonsense.

Can you explain Dr. Shaviv’s work to me.  I watched the video in close detail, but I’m still unsure what exactly what his model is for describing climate change.

Sorry to trivialize your statement, I sincerely do not understand how he can claim that climate scientists as a whole do not account for the sun, see for example https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13519/the-effects-of-solar-variability-on-earths-climate-a-workshop  How/where does his assessment differ from the standard view that over the past 50-75 years solar output has not had a significant upward trend, i.e. the trend on solar output is flat or slightly decreasing?  If clouds are so important to his model, is he saying that CO2 doesn’t lead to *temperature* change but rather to changes in the long term latent heat content of the atmosphere? 

From his talk, I get the impression that he’s been able to fit a set of historical temperature data, are there any other outcomes of his model that can be compared to other independent measurements?

For geologic time CO2 climate effects, have you read this: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209.full ?

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  86
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 14:00
 
Marten123 - 13 September 2017 08:10 AM

Thanks for your reply. So here we go

1. As I hear it, he’s saying that since the Ipcc never updates the underlying assumptions about forcings and sensitivities, they will always come up with inaccurate and hyperbolic results to the data. And they just keep forecasting for so long that it becomes hard to keep it up with how inaccurate their predictions are (especially after forecasts are compounded over a century). Honestly it is a very bad thing to be falsely predicting the end of the world imho. Bad people do things like that and spread so much unnecessary fear and anguish.

2. His point is cloud computation is controversial and based on their models they can be as sensitive as they want to hit whatever target they want. It’s really an unknown variable in all this and needs to be researched much further imho. Ipcc models take advantage of that and just “plug it” to suit their interests.

3. Cloud cover could be anthropogenic sure and to some extent that does happen, but this whole presentation is about how cloud creation results from cosmic rays and has been for thousands of years. Again the main driver with climate is the sun.

4. I can’t confirm the dates on solar output over time but the conclusion is that it is and always has been the main driver. I agree I’d love to hear more about the co2 and temp graph as well as more about solar radiation over time. But I don’t think your speculations discredit him, rather they demand a deeper conversation.

5. Yeah he’s clearly upset with the Ipcc models and rightly so! Haha wink he does state the conclusion of his modelings - they reach an upper barrier that is the Ipcc’s lower barrier. I don’t know about the other parameters either but again it calls for more conversation.

5. He mentions how the Ipcc takes into account the solar activity. They included the .17w calculation but they did NOT include the 6-7 times effect that has on clouds. This is his main dig on Ipcc. They aren’t modeling the sun strong enough and they are over modeling co2.

I don’t agree with you that these studies aren’t important and that the sun doesn’t play a larger role in climate. I think this is far more important than co2 and fossil fuels. Nevertheless thank you for your analysis and review. I do agree with you that more details and specifics and studies need to be done here. Too bad we can’t bet on the Ipcc doing them!!!! Cheers mate smile

Somehow I missed this post until now, which might be part of why your other post struck me as being so off the wall.

1. No, to pick a convenient parameter, the range of sensitivity estimates repported out by the IPCC have narrowed and come down slightly over their series of reports.  If I recall correctly, early iterations reported out a sensitivity range of 3-6 (or maybe 7) C/2x and more recent iterations are more like 2 (maybe 2.5) - 4 (maybe 4.5).  Note that the IPCC doesn’t make up these estimates, these are summaries of the results that have been generated by reviewing the relevant climatological literature.

2. They don’t “get anything they want” they get results that tend to cluster around 2-4C/2x —and much of this range is due to the fact that there is uncertainty in the effects of clouds.

3. If cloud cover is independent of CO2 or temperature then you’re still left with the problem that: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it’s “bare” sensitivity is around 1C/2x, so increasing it does increase the amount of heat capture by at least that much, until you start considering feedbacks.  Water vapor, which is almost certainly a positive feedback, is the next most important one.  Then comes clouds, but if clouds are dominated by cosmic rays then they are not (much of a) feedback mechanism.  Thus we still end up with global warming of >1C/2xCO2. 

As a final point, if clouds are such a mystery, and his model depends on them, why do you put so much stock in the explanatory power of his approach?
The manner in which you discuss this model makes me think that you are quite certain that he is quite accurate.  I still have many questions about his methodology,
that “everything is a free parameter” phrase really strikes me as a red flag that his model could be non-physical, but am willing to accommodate that there is still a non-zero (albeit very small) chance that the climate sensitivity is down around 1C/2xCO2.

Does he make a prediction for how much the amount/type of cloud cover varies as a function of solar output that we could compare to actual measurements?
In his model, do clouds cause positive or negative forcing?

 

[ Edited: 13 September 2017 14:03 by mapadofu]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  86
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 14:05
 
Marten123 - 13 September 2017 09:22 AM

You’d have to at least acknowledge and then refute all the data showing the sun is the main driver of climate. Pofessor Nir Shaviv’s work seems important to me and would need to be addressed in detail. I’d also need to see more of a handle on clouds. I’d also like to see more science on the conditions of the earth at times when CO2 was much higher. We know that plants and animals lived at those times so why are we thinking CO2 is a pollutant and the apocalyptic destroyer of all things? If there’s more water on the earth, okay - so we build super cool water cities (like Venice with awesome new buildings!!!!). What’s the big deal?

Also it’s important to realize that none of this conversation really matters anyway since we have no reasonable alternatives to fossil fuels anyway. If there’s other genuine options in lieu of fossil fuels I’m interested! Climate change people are NOT solutions based. They are problem focused but literally have no exit strategy AND their data and modeling has flaws in it. Why would any reasonable person sign up to something so ludicrous. At least with Christianity they offer life in heaven and stuff. This religion doesn’t even offer you that - typically aetheists though right! Haha I mean if liberal aetherists were going to create a religion it would be this!! Haha does that answer your question? Thanks and take care!

How much do those super cool water cities cost?  One way of interpreting my point is just that we should (try to) account for those kinds of costs when we make decisions.
Again, it is not the case that the kinds of CO2 levels that we’re going to get to make the planet uninhabitable—just different and we get/have to choose between the convenience of using more fossil fuels now and what we’re going to be spending time money and effort on in the future.

To the extent that the assertion that people who recognize that climate change is happening “are NOT solutions based”—so what? That observation does not make the problem go away.

Oh yeah, back to one of my earlier posts, which of the policies that I suggested veer towards socialism (#164)?
Here’s the paragraph you were referring to:

I don’t rule out nuclear, and figure that we can design and construct new reactors that are safer (and more efficient) than the old designs, but we’re still trading one more immediate problem, climate change, for another long term one, nuclear waste.  Some of the modest things that I have in mind are to make sure that we do not set up policies that provide additional benefit to fossil fuel utilization (beyond the fact that as of yet the cost of those fuels does not comprehend the long term costs that we’ll incur from using them).  Mineral rights on public lands, government investments in or backing of fossil fuel related infrastructure development, environmental regulations, not even necessarily directly on carbon output, ensuring that we don’t put up unwarranted adverse regulations on alternative energy sources.  On a more local level, city planning and zoning that allows for more extensive use of public transportation could help.  Even Uber like things might help: in some areas we might go back to a more delivery based approach for distribution: I’m thinking of grocery (and other household item) delivery IT infrastructure allows for organizing the orders and optimizing the routes, a single vehicle servicing an entire neighbourhood might produce a net reduction in fuel usage relative to people in each household driving themselves to and from the store.  A while back, the head of the Dept. of Energy was ridiculed for suggesting that we make albedo changes, basically have white roads/rooftops, why not?  It could help in the sense that urban areas with this type of treatment will undergo less warming than if untreated.[\quote]

[ Edited: 13 September 2017 14:07 by mapadofu]
 
Shortmiddle
 
Avatar
 
 
Shortmiddle
Total Posts:  24
Joined  07-05-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 15:50
 
d0rkyd00d - 13 September 2017 11:27 AM
Marten123 - 13 September 2017 09:22 AM

As I do with all scientific subjects, I must admit I will defer my judgment to the experts.  When the experts overwhelmingly conclude we were erroneous in believing that humans are driving climate change, then I will latch on to that.  But I do have deep respect for anybody who actually pours through the data and research and reaches a different conclusion.

Here is my issue…I don’t understand the science well enough to be able to support or refute it.  I DO, however, understand meta-analyses and statistics well enough to know that the studies cited for “97% consensus”  DON’T support that conclusion outside of the abstract.  There may actually be a 97% consensus.  I don’t know.  What I do know is that people are working awfully hard to make us THINK there’s a 97% consensus, and that bothers me.  Cook is the worst, and while I don’t think he’s malicious (his reports support being good to the planet), I do think he’s unethical (a lie for a good reason is still a lie).

Oh…and I also wanted to get on board supporting super cool water cities!

 
NorrisM
 
Avatar
 
 
NorrisM
Total Posts:  7
Joined  12-09-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 17:29
 

Can we agree that even the skepticalscience.com website of John Cook who originally coined the term the “97% consensus” only refers to the “consensus” of climate scientists (again by analysis of peer-reviewed papers) that the major cause of global warming is anthropogenic.  Nothing more.

I would suspect that just about all climate scientists on both sides would agree with this statement.  Certainly Judith Curry does. 

I appreciate that Lindzen does not but until some other viable alternative is shown, I think it makes more sense to “accept the consensus opinion” on this given what looks like a pretty good correlation between our increased use of CO2 since 1950 and the increased temperature.  Politically, it just makes more sense to concede this one point and get rid of the “97% consensus” once and for all.

Why argue about this when the real issue is what effect will the CO2 have on future temperatures and other climate events?  To me the real issues are how much of a temperature change this level of CO2 emissions will cause (ie ECS etc), what are the consequences of that predicted temperature change and what is the most efficient way to deal with that change?  The real weaknesses on the “consensus” side are the global climate models, the fine-tuning used to “hindcast”,  and their ability to predict future temperatures.  They cannot input the effects of clouds without “parameterization” because the computers simple do not have the capabilities to do so given power limitations.

Leaving aside discussions of nuclear power, I like what Bjorn Lomborg has to suggest in Cool It (Freeman Dyson says it is the best book he has read on the subject).  Makes more sense to me until we come up with better technological ways to create clean energy if the US public will not go for nuclear power.  His principal recommendation is a contribution by all countries of .05% of their GDP to research for new and improved technologies representing about $25 Billion per year. 

On the views of Americans on nuclear power, see Pew Research survey in 2016 where Americans surveyed were 54% against and 43% in favour of nuclear power, about the same percentages for fracking. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

Lomborg says there are much more efficient ways of dealing with climate change and a lot less expensive than a massive carbon tax.  He does propose a ballpark carbon tax of about $10 per ton.  We live with fossil fuels and deal with the effects until we come up with better ways.  Think of the incredible spin-offs that came from the Apollo program.  Same applies to this level of R&D expenditure.  What America needs is more R&D in any event.  Not that Trump is helping that!

These are all things I would like Sam Harris to examine but I suspect he just does not have the knowledge base in this area to ask the relevant questions of his guests.  I got that impression from some of his questions to Romm.  He was just asking questions us “followers” had asked him to ask without him really having an understanding of the nuances.

 
NotaTrumpSupporter
 
Avatar
 
 
NotaTrumpSupporter
Total Posts:  8
Joined  28-06-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 18:49
 
NorrisM - 13 September 2017 05:29 PM

Can we agree that even the skepticalscience.com website of John Cook who originally coined the term the “97% consensus” only refers to the “consensus” of climate scientists (again by analysis of peer-reviewed papers) that the major cause of global warming is anthropogenic.  Nothing more.

I would suspect that just about all climate scientists on both sides would agree with this statement.  Certainly Judith Curry does. 

I appreciate that Lindzen does not but until some other viable alternative is shown, I think it makes more sense to “accept the consensus opinion” on this given what looks like a pretty good correlation between our increased use of CO2 since 1950 and the increased temperature.  Politically, it just makes more sense to concede this one point and get rid of the “97% consensus” once and for all.

Why argue about this when the real issue is what effect will the CO2 have on future temperatures and other climate events?  To me the real issues are how much of a temperature change this level of CO2 emissions will cause (ie ECS etc), what are the consequences of that predicted temperature change and what is the most efficient way to deal with that change?  The real weaknesses on the “consensus” side are the global climate models, the fine-tuning used to “hindcast”,  and their ability to predict future temperatures.  They cannot input the effects of clouds without “parameterization” because the computers simple do not have the capabilities to do so given power limitations.

Leaving aside discussions of nuclear power, I like what Bjorn Lomborg has to suggest in Cool It (Freeman Dyson says it is the best book he has read on the subject).  Makes more sense to me until we come up with better technological ways to create clean energy if the US public will not go for nuclear power.  His principal recommendation is a contribution by all countries of .05% of their GDP to research for new and improved technologies representing about $25 Billion per year. 

On the views of Americans on nuclear power, see Pew Research survey in 2016 where Americans surveyed were 54% against and 43% in favour of nuclear power, about the same percentages for fracking. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

Lomborg says there are much more efficient ways of dealing with climate change and a lot less expensive than a massive carbon tax.  He does propose a ballpark carbon tax of about $10 per ton.  We live with fossil fuels and deal with the effects until we come up with better ways.  Think of the incredible spin-offs that came from the Apollo program.  Same applies to this level of R&D expenditure.  What America needs is more R&D in any event.  Not that Trump is helping that!

These are all things I would like Sam Harris to examine but I suspect he just does not have the knowledge base in this area to ask the relevant questions of his guests.  I got that impression from some of his questions to Romm.  He was just asking questions us “followers” had asked him to ask without him really having an understanding of the nuances.

As far as I have been able to tell, the studies show that 97% of climate science PAPERS support the conclusion that AGW is a significant contributing factor in climate change, not climate SCIENTISTS. Since some scientists certainly publish multiple papers the numbers aren’t equivalent. And yet the study is repeatedly cited for the proposition that 97% of “climate scientists” agree that AGW is a substantial contributing factor in climate change.

I don’t pretend to know the science. But I can see the slight of hand done with this statistic. This and other instances of exaggeration, embellishment and sophistry, make me doubt the credibility of much of the rest of the global warming alarmists like Romm. If the science is so solid, why result to these kinds of tricks?

 

 

[ Edited: 13 September 2017 19:44 by NotaTrumpSupporter]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  86
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 20:06
 

Norris—another interesting and sensible post.  Is ECS something like E… Climate Sensitivity?

 
Marten123
 
Avatar
 
 
Marten123
Total Posts:  34
Joined  19-06-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 22:06
 
mapadofu - 13 September 2017 02:05 PM
Marten123 - 13 September 2017 09:22 AM

You’d have to at least acknowledge and then refute all the data showing the sun is the main driver of climate. Pofessor Nir Shaviv’s work seems important to me and would need to be addressed in detail. I’d also need to see more of a handle on clouds. I’d also like to see more science on the conditions of the earth at times when CO2 was much higher. We know that plants and animals lived at those times so why are we thinking CO2 is a pollutant and the apocalyptic destroyer of all things? If there’s more water on the earth, okay - so we build super cool water cities (like Venice with awesome new buildings!!!!). What’s the big deal?

Also it’s important to realize that none of this conversation really matters anyway since we have no reasonable alternatives to fossil fuels anyway. If there’s other genuine options in lieu of fossil fuels I’m interested! Climate change people are NOT solutions based. They are problem focused but literally have no exit strategy AND their data and modeling has flaws in it. Why would any reasonable person sign up to something so ludicrous. At least with Christianity they offer life in heaven and stuff. This religion doesn’t even offer you that - typically aetheists though right! Haha I mean if liberal aetherists were going to create a religion it would be this!! Haha does that answer your question? Thanks and take care!

How much do those super cool water cities cost?  One way of interpreting my point is just that we should (try to) account for those kinds of costs when we make decisions.
Again, it is not the case that the kinds of CO2 levels that we’re going to get to make the planet uninhabitable—just different and we get/have to choose between the convenience of using more fossil fuels now and what we’re going to be spending time money and effort on in the future.

To the extent that the assertion that people who recognize that climate change is happening “are NOT solutions based”—so what? That observation does not make the problem go away.

Oh yeah, back to one of my earlier posts, which of the policies that I suggested veer towards socialism (#164)?
Here’s the paragraph you were referring to:

I don’t rule out nuclear, and figure that we can design and construct new reactors that are safer (and more efficient) than the old designs, but we’re still trading one more immediate problem, climate change, for another long term one, nuclear waste.  Some of the modest things that I have in mind are to make sure that we do not set up policies that provide additional benefit to fossil fuel utilization (beyond the fact that as of yet the cost of those fuels does not comprehend the long term costs that we’ll incur from using them).  Mineral rights on public lands, government investments in or backing of fossil fuel related infrastructure development, environmental regulations, not even necessarily directly on carbon output, ensuring that we don’t put up unwarranted adverse regulations on alternative energy sources.  On a more local level, city planning and zoning that allows for more extensive use of public transportation could help.  Even Uber like things might help: in some areas we might go back to a more delivery based approach for distribution: I’m thinking of grocery (and other household item) delivery IT infrastructure allows for organizing the orders and optimizing the routes, a single vehicle servicing an entire neighbourhood might produce a net reduction in fuel usage relative to people in each household driving themselves to and from the store.  A while back, the head of the Dept. of Energy was ridiculed for suggesting that we make albedo changes, basically have white roads/rooftops, why not?  It could help in the sense that urban areas with this type of treatment will undergo less warming than if untreated.[\quote]

Obviously I don’t know how much a water city would cost. But the point is it can be done. If people need to migrate there will be costs. Those costs are far better to deal with than just stopping life as we know it and refusing to use fossil fuels. THAT is the real true cost to us all and that is exactly why India and China won’t get on board fully with stopping their production (nor should they and nor should we) and that is also why it is a real tragedy and true cost in the classical sense that we aren’t expanding fossil fuel production in Africa to help aleviate poverty, starvation, and poor living standards. The costs you refer to regarding building water cities aren’t really “costs” - they’re actually investments.

You state this:

“To the extent that the assertion that people who recognize that climate change is happening “are NOT solutions based”—so what? That observation does not make the problem go away.”

No “observations” alone make problems go away so your point is moot. However as a point of logic solutions, by definition, DO make problems go away. Therefore my observation that people are not solutions based, by definition, means they are literally not helping solve any problems. Problems, by the way, which they are not even fully forthright, honest, or even aware on. 

The possible socialist veering I sensed was in city planning and zoning and in limiting businesses to only serving customers in certain ways with limited personnel and/or restricting people from doing what they wanted to do (shopping, etc). In other words, climate change hysteria opens fallacious slippery slope arguments that the government needs to regulate us all more and more and control our lives more and more in the name of environmental disaster and looming catastrophe. Honestly I suspect that this type of an approach is where the Ipcc and climate change originators want to go with our society and governance - more control, more authoritarianism, more destruction of Liberty and we the people.

 
‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 >