Technology, Science and the Environment.

[MC Prussian]

On 02/10/2019 at 00:05, Carl the Llama said:

If your point is that the 97% figure isn't 100% reliable because such things can't be perfectly quantified and using it implies the scientists agree on every single point when they don't but it's still true that modern science points overwhelmingly to the climate being adversely impacted by our activities, then I guess that's an accurate interpretation of the evidence you've provided as far as I can make out without bypassing paywalls.

 

If your point is that we can't trust the idea of a consensus because there are varying estimations of exactly how much impact we've had and continue to have then that's a bad faith interpretation.

 

Trouble is you kicked this whole debate off coming at it from the view of being sceptical that we have any impact on the climate's "constant flux" as you put it.  So when you start trying to paint the 97% as a misleading figure when it's clearly just intended as a broad representation of the reality that there's a scientific consensus on the matter, it looks like you're trying to deny that there is a "consensus".  But you've just said you have no issue with the idea of a "consensus" and the air quotes reassure me that you definitely mean it so I guess we can end this here?

I don't deny Climate Change, I don't see how anyone can. We as humans are surely having a certain impact on climate, no doubt about that. I've stated that many, many times.

My gripe is with the public discussion, the science behind climate change, the media's spin on it and questions regarding the IPCC as the Holy Grail, the sole source of "credible" information among others.

 

As demonstrated above, there's a lot of disagreement in the scientific world, and I think that is a good thing. No science in itself can claim to be complete or unable to evolve further, the same goes for climate science. For example, you'd concur that relying studies on findings that are now close to 30 years old in a field that relies heavily on time and development in time cannot be as accurate anymore than they were back in the days?

 

"Consensus" is a political term most and foremost and has little to no place in science. Science is about evolution and constant challenge.

To me, the IPCC comes across as a political institution more than a scientific one. 

Here's how the IPCC works:

 

Quote

... Scientists are not in charge at the IPCC. ...

... A big IPCC meeting takes place. Attended by governments. Although some people in the room are scientists, the vast majority are diplomats, politicians, foreign affairs specialists, bureaucrats, and assorted other officials. These people then spend the next week re-writing the summary authored by scientists.

... The bottom line is that this is a week of naked political horse trading that goes on behind closed doors. Journalists are not allowed to witness what takes place, which is why we’ve been looking at official IPCC photos here. This is what they permit us to see.

It’s only after the diplomats have haggled over this Summary – paragraph by paragraph – that the final version gets officially released at a press conference. ...

... The world is then told that science has spoken. But what’s just happened has nothing to do with science. Scientific truth is not determined in the dead of night by UN-level negotiations. On what planet would such an approach make scientific sense?...

But the bad news doesn’t stop there. There’s actually a step in the IPCC process in which the original, lengthy report gets amended so that it conforms to the politically-negotiated Summary. I am not making this up. ...

...the IPCC’s primary function is to enable a political instrument – a treaty between nation states. This is high octane politics. ...

... The 27-year-old IPCC is, in fact, a template. It’s part of a pattern in which the UN, again and again, exploits the good name of science. ...

... We live in a world in which people are suspicious of politicians, but still respect scientists. Politicians are therefore eager to borrow the prestige of science, to camouflage their own agenda with a veneer of scientific authority.

https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/09/01/3-things-scientists-need-to-know-about-the-ipcc/

 

I'm fed up with the propaganda and the hysteria surrounding climate activists and climate strikes, when we need a clear and logical head more than anything.

Clearly, the 97% is a made-up number based on a handful of highly selective surveys, all biased and/or incomplete in their own way. I'm not claiming that there is/was malicious intent, but certainly no interest in being faithful to the existing data sets and/or their creators, either.

It is clear that 97% makes for great headlines and scaremongering. But the number only reflects a portion of the scientific world, not climate science on the whole, which is a vast array of scientists coming from multiple disciplines (geographers, geologists, meteorologists, physicists, chemists, statisticians, ecologists, economists, etc. etc.).

 

If we're debating climate change, then we'll need at least start from a healthy and honest basis, and I don't see that being the case right now. We have a problem, but it isn't as bad as some are trying to make out.

The issue with climate science on the whole is that it is hard to predict climate in the future, seeing that we already have a hard time foreseeing weather, for instance.

The constant change or flux, the natural cycle is only in parts predictable, and weather as well as climate are dependent on many different factors, requiring climate sciencists a knowledge in various different fields. Only few can claim to be that versatile and knowledgable.

 

Tim Ball challenged Michael Mann, creator of the (in)famous Hockey Stick graph, and went to court over it - the case was dismissed, but Mann could not provide evidence to the contrary (reference at 42:15 in the video below).

Quote

““I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation…. I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property…”

https://principia-scientific.org/should-michael-hockey-stick-mann-be-prosecuted-for-climate-fraud/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-mann-lawsuit/

That a scientist like Mann refuses to share his research fully with other scientists comes across as rather questionable, don't you think? After all, I always thought that was standard procedure, peer review and whatnot - unless you have something to hide. Otherwise, how does science evolve thoroughly if you base future findings on previous findings that were potentially tampered with?

 

Here's a more recent video of Tim Ball discussing some of the major issues in climate science, including the re-labeling of Global Warming (a term I grew up with) as Climate Change, the lacking accuracy of weather stations and temperature predictions, more and more weather stations closing, change of calling IPCC "predictions" to "projections", toying with the general perception of climate, big money in (climate) science, data manipulation, such as lowering of historic records in comparison to recent findings or omitting them altogether, etc:

If this isn't scandalous, then what is it?

The Warwick Hughes/Phil Jones exchange about the questions regarding temperature measurements explained in more detail:

https://climateaudit.org/2005/10/15/we-have-25-years-invested-in-this-work/

 

Surely, all these findings can easily be refuted or Ball challenged in court - based on several sources, and not just based on John Cook's personal blog, I might add.

Edited 3 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49904668

 

Target the traders, more than that target the buyers. Is that really that difficult?

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49919464

 

Sorry, but for every child abuser benefiting from encrypted communication there is a person languishing under an oppressive regime in China, Russia or elsewhere who would suffer for exercising their freedom of communication if authorities could trace it. Which of those, exactly, is more important?

[Jon the Hat]

19 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49904668

 

Target the traders, more than that target the buyers. Is that really that difficult?

Yes indeed.  It's probably not a bad idea also to try to help raise those on the ground doing the hunting out of poverty in other ways too.

[Jon the Hat]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49919464

 

Sorry, but for every child abuser benefiting from encrypted communication there is a person languishing under an oppressive regime in China, Russia or elsewhere who would suffer for exercising their freedom of communication if authorities could trace it. Which of those, exactly, is more important?

I'm not entirely convinced that providing criminals and terrorists with a basically free encrypted messaging system is completely justified by the fact that there are oppressive regimes in power elsewhere.  Sounds like an excuse not to do anything.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Yes indeed.  It's probably not a bad idea also to try to help raise those on the ground doing the hunting out of poverty in other ways too.

No disagreement there, it's all about following the money, after all. I do think targetting the buyers should be a priority, though.

 

15 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I'm not entirely convinced that providing criminals and terrorists with a basically free encrypted messaging system is completely justified by the fact that there are oppressive regimes in power elsewhere.  Sounds like an excuse not to do anything.

I'm certainly thinking that the status quo does suit the tech companies, but for me a sufficiently directed government apparatus is, and always will be, much, much better at destroying the lives of people than any criminal gang or terrorist organisation can be. And as long as there are governments around the world who are not accountable to either the people they govern or anyone else, that will always be a problem.

[MC Prussian]

47 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49919464

 

Sorry, but for every child abuser benefiting from encrypted communication there is a person languishing under an oppressive regime in China, Russia or elsewhere who would suffer for exercising their freedom of communication if authorities could trace it. Which of those, exactly, is more important?

Challenging encrypted messages on Facebook is the wrong approach. It's again attacking the symptoms instead of the cause of the issue.

 

Wrongdoers -  sexual predators in this case - will simply find another channel, another means of communication.

And if everything fails, there's still the Dark Web.

Edited 5 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Challenging encrypted messages on Facebook is the wrong approach. It's again attacking the symptoms instead of the cause of the issue.

 

Wrongdoers -  sexual predators in this case - will simply find another channel another means of communication.

And if everything fails, there's still the Dark Web.

There's that argument too.

 

Can't stop the signal - even China with all the Emperors men can't stop people poking holes in their "Great Firewall", no matter how many end up going missing.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49955468

 

Dynamism.

[MC Prussian]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

She is saying exactly that, again if the message is understood. Why do people persist in thinking there are no solutions being floated (hell, I've quoted Drawdown numerous times in this very place and that's hardly the only source of such solutions) and that an increase in global average temperature and its consequences are somehow an (overly) political matter? It's deckchairs on the Titanic.

 

With respect, Matt, I believe you are seeing exactly what you want to see, rather than what is. Of course, you could turn round and say the same about me, but the temperature data speaks for itself, and always will.

 

Never had you down as a lover of fine violinists, Inno - seems at odds with your sense of self-interest.

The temperature data you're referring to speaks for itself? Based on what grounds? Our global warming at present needs to be seen in context to previous, historic warming periods. CO2 output seen as a chance, not a threat (CO2 is 0.0391 percent of the atmospheric mix; plants thrive on CO2). Alarmism without scientific facts equals scaremongering.

 

 

Quote

In its First Assessment Report, the IPCC showed the bottom graph as the historical record for the past thousand years (in Europe), but in its Third Assessment Report (TAR 2001), the above Hockey Stick appeared, first published by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1998 (MBH98). It showed more dramatic warming in the last decade, hid the decline of the Little Ice Age and other periods of cold, and the Medieval Warm Period that saw Europe flourish. It claimed the 1990s as the warmest period in past 2 millennia.

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate4.htm

 

You're offering little solutions and instead revert to nothing but empty-shell terms here and platitudes.

 

Climate Change is currently indeed and sadly more about politics and activism than it is about science and fact.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The temperature data you're referring to speaks for itself? Based on what grounds? Our global warming at present needs to be seen in context to previous, historic warming periods. CO2 output seen as a chance, not a threat (CO2 is 0.0391 percent of the atmospheric mix; plants thrive on CO2). Alarmism without scientific facts equals scaremongering.

 

 

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate4.htm

 

You're offering little solutions and instead revert to nothing but empty-shell terms here and platitudes.

 

Climate Change is currently indeed and sadly more about politics and activism than it is about science and fact.

We're not doing this dance again Prussian, this has been discussed before and I have much more productive things to do with my day. Enjoy yours.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49965556

 

Again, what global regs can do when the leading players stick to them.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49962134

 

That's...a lot of satellites.

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

We're not doing this dance again Prussian, this has been discussed before and I have much more productive things to do with my day. Enjoy yours.

If you're starting it or continuing it again, expect a rebuttal.

 

It's called a discussion. Which you are more and more avoiding. Strangely enough.

[Finnaldo]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

If you're starting it or continuing it again, expect a rebuttal.

 

It's called a discussion. Which you are more and more avoiding. Strangely enough.

 

Prussian out of interest, do you have any links to the scientific papers or journals your points are from?

 

I'd like to have a read through them to get a better understanding of your point.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

If you're starting it or continuing it again, expect a rebuttal.

 

It's called a discussion. Which you are more and more avoiding. Strangely enough.

Fair enough, I said the same to you a while back.

 

Allow me, however, to be clear, once and for all:

 

I'm perfectly fine with talking about the potential consequences of increased temperature change for civilisation, and how countries around the world and their internal politics respond to it. What I believe to be totally closed and what I will no longer debate, however, is the fact that a plethora of datasets have proven that global average temperatures are rising at an steady if not increasing rate, CO2 levels are doing so commensurately, and that these factors will lead to drastic changes of various kinds in the Earths climate that will affect human civilisation. The data has been presented here (several times and in detail), it is freely available elsewhere, and distrusting the data on that or believing it to be a minor problem is IMO like denying evolutionary theory, the oblate-spheroidness of the Earth, or the efficacy of most vaccines - ignorant and and an insult to the scientific method that has deduced all of those. @Line-X explained in the ER thread exactly why. It is a waste of time - and time is possibly the most precious resource humans have, and we take it for granted way too much.

 

I sincerely hope that is clear enough.

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, I said the same to you a while back.

 

Allow me, however, to be clear, once and for all:

 

I'm perfectly fine with talking about the potential consequences of increased temperature change for civilisation, and how countries around the world and their internal politics respond to it. What I believe to be totally closed and what I will no longer debate, however, is the fact that a plethora of datasets have proven that global average temperatures are rising at an steady if not increasing rate, CO2 levels are doing so commensurately, and that these factors will lead to drastic changes of various kinds in the Earths climate that will affect human civilisation. The data has been presented here (several times and in detail), it is freely available elsewhere, and distrusting the data on that or believing it to be a minor problem is IMO like denying evolutionary theory, the oblate-spheroidness of the Earth, or the efficacy of most vaccines - ignorant and and an insult to the scientific method that has deduced all of those. @Line-X explained in the ER thread exactly why. It is a waste of time - and time is possibly the most precious resource humans have, and we take it for granted way too much.

 

I sincerely hope that is clear enough.

Let's take this apart:

Quote

...a plethora of datasets have proven that global average temperatures are rising at an steady if not increasing rate,

Temperatures are rising, there's highly likely no doubt about that. I think we agree here. Whether the rate is significant in the grand scheme of things in terms of Earth's history, however, remains debatable. The planet has seen (much) warmer periods for a prolonged period of time before and survived. And then, as seen from a human perspective, there is the question whether warmer temperatures are more desirable as opposed to colder temperatures.

 

Quote

CO2 levels are doing so commensurately

Ok, so an increase in CO2 - a greenhouse gas that makes up roughly 0,04% of the globe's atmosphere.

From 2018 to 2019, the increase has been 0,00035%:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/04/latest-data-shows-steep-rises-in-co2-for-seventh-year

Why should we be worried based on an increase of such small margins? Especially when we know there have been plenty of periods in Earth's history with a much higher total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Also, the question remains whether relying on one weather station alone (Mauna Loa/Hawaii) is a true representation of the actual CO2 percentage (and its increase) in the atmosphere. Surely, we'd have to measure in various different places in order to come to a more precise conclusion, no?

 

Quote

...these factors will lead to drastic changes of various kinds in the Earths climate that will affect human civilisation.

You're no better off than I am here - whereas you believe in a doomsday scenario, I do not. Based on the fact that climate science is a relatively young field, including a vast amount of fields of study, just as many, if not more different natural influences, based on relatively little research compared to other sciences, contradictory reports, IPCC scandals, falsified studies and stats, lack of thorough scientific peer procedure, Climategate - predictions based on this mess are by no means accurate, as are predictions in general.

 

Quote

... distrusting the data on that or believing it to be a minor problem is IMO like denying evolutionary theory, the oblate-spheroidness of the Earth, or the efficacy of most vaccines

If you continue to take the IPCC's stance, and/or John Cook's personal blog or NASA studies for granted, without any room for error, bias, external influence, misrepresentation and mistakes, you're just as bad as claiming anyone that doesn't believe the 97% hype to be a denier of evolutionary theory.

Science doesn't stand still and so doesn't Climate Science.

Your comparison is utterly ridiculous, btw. Anthropology or archeology is by no means comparable to climate sciences, because the facts/hard truths/evidence manifest(s) in many different ways here and because this field for instance is able to look backwards mostly, and doesn't have to look forward... Strawman argument, if there ever was one.

Edited 8 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

 

Temperatures are rising, there's highly likely no doubt about that. I think we agree here. Whether the rate is significant in the grand scheme of things in terms of Earth's history, however, remains debatable. The planet has seen (much) warmer periods for a prolonged period of time before and survived. And then, as seen from a human perspective, there is the question whether warmer temperatures are more desirable as opposed to colder temperatures.

 

Significant in the Earths history....no, probably not. As you say, 50 million years ago it was about 12 degrees C on average hotter than today.

 

Significant in the history of modern human civilisation? Absolutely. And that is not trivial. Those warmer temperatures might seem desirable because "hey, we can grow wine in the UK now!" but there's some rather pertinent drawbacks to increased average temperature too, which I'll come to later.

 

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Ok, so an increase in CO2 - a greenhouse gas that makes up roughly 0,04% of the globe's atmosphere.

From 2018 to 2019, the increase has been 0,00035%:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/04/latest-data-shows-steep-rises-in-co2-for-seventh-year

Why should we be worried based on an increase of such small margins? Especially when we know there have been plenty of periods in Earth's history with a much higher total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Also, the question remains whether relying on one weather station alone (Mauna Loa/Hawaii) is a true representation of the actual CO2 percentage (and its increase) in the atmosphere. Surely, we'd have to measure in various different places in order to come to a more precise conclusion, no?

 

...because there is a clear and actionable causal link between it and average temperatures, despite the trace amounts of it comparable to other gases - which is measured from a variety of stations as well as from space, rather than just Mauna Loa. So, they already do exactly as you say.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm

 

 

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

You're no better off than I am here - whereas you believe in a doomsday scenario, I do not. Based on the fact that climate science is a relatively young field, including a vast amount of fields of study, just as many, if not more different natural influences, based on relatively little research compared to other sciences, contradictory reports, IPCC scandals, falsified studies and stats, lack of scientific peer procedure, Climategate - predictions based on this mess are by no means accurate, as are predictions in general.

 

I believe that a doomsday scenario is certainly possible - and possible enough (but not certain) to warrant measures being taken to defend against it. It is simply the most risk-averse path to take based on the Pascals Wager that we have before us - and while I like a flutter every so often, basing the future of human civilisation on the gamble that things will be fine, even if the odds are quite long, is a bit much. Hotter average temperatures could result in lack of food and potable water in a lot of different places resulting in knock-on effects, the extinction of many other animal species and collapse of food webs (again, with knock-on effects) and stronger weather phenomena resulting in greater extremes of heat, cold and wind in many different places, which won't exactly be good for infrastructure. That's just a few consequences.

 

NB. You demean and insult every researcher and scientist involved in the climate science process as well as the scientific method itself with your bolded words here.

 

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

If you continue to take the IPCC's stance, and/or John Cook's personal blog or NASA studies for granted, without any room for error, bias, external influence, misrepresentation and mistakes, you're just as bad as claiming anyone that doesn't believe the 97% hype to be a denier of evolutionary theory.

Science doesn't stand still and so doesn't Climate Science.

Your comparison is utterly ridiculous, btw. Anthropology or archeology is by no means comparable to climate sciences, because the facts/hard truths/evidence manifest(s) in many different ways here and because this field for instance is able to look backwards mostly, and doesn't have to look forward... Strawman argument, if there ever was one.

Yes, I trust the data, and the scientists who have supplied it to a high degree of accuracy, because I trust the scientific method to correct itself should it find itself in error - at least over time. I think that if they are wrong, they will be corrected in short order. But for now, theirs is the prevailing wisdom and I am happy to trust it - and I am also happy to label those who do not in with flat Earth theorists, anti-vaxxers and creationists as they display similar contempt for the scientific method. If that is not to ones liking....well, that's just too bad, and I'm sorry.

 

 

Edited 8 October 2019 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

If you're starting it or continuing it again, expect a rebuttal.

 

It's called a discussion. Which you are more and more avoiding. Strangely enough.

 

5 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Prussian out of interest, do you have any links to the scientific papers or journals your points are from?

 

I'd like to have a read through them to get a better understanding of your point.

I would mind seeing these, too. You know, in the interests of sourcing information gleaned from the scientific method and subjected to legit peer review.

Edited 8 October 2019 by leicsmac

[MC Prussian]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Significant in the Earths history....no, probably not. As you say, 50 million years ago it was about 12 degrees C on average hotter than today.

 

Significant in the history of modern human civilisation? Absolutely. And that is not trivial. Those warmer temperatures might seem desirable because "hey, we can grow wine in the UK now!" but there's some rather pertinent drawbacks to increased average temperature too, which I'll come to later.

 

...because there is a clear and actionable causal link between it and average temperatures, despite the trace amounts of it comparable to other gases - which is measured from a variety of stations as well as from space, rather than just Mauna Loa. So, they already do exactly as you say.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm

 

 

I believe that a doomsday scenario is certainly possible - and possible enough (but not certain) to warrant measures being taken to defend against it. It is simply the most risk-averse path to take based on the Pascals Wager that we have before us - and while I like a flutter every so often, basing the future of human civilisation on the gamble that things will be fine, even if the odds are quite long, is a bit much. Hotter average temperatures could result in lack of food and potable water in a lot of different places resulting in knock-on effects, the extinction of many other animal species and collapse of food webs (again, with knock-on effects) and stronger weather phenomena resulting in greater extremes of heat, cold and wind in many different places, which won't exactly be good for infrastructure. That's just a few consequences.

 

NB. You demean and insult every researcher and scientist involved in the climate science process as well as the scientific method itself with your bolded words here.

 

Yes, I trust the data, and the scientists who have supplied it to a high degree of accuracy, because I trust the scientific method to correct itself should it find itself in error - at least over time. I think that if they are wrong, they will be corrected in short order. But for now, theirs is the prevailing wisdom and I am happy to trust it - and I am also happy to label those who do not in with flat Earth theorists, anti-vaxxers and creationists as they display similar contempt for the scientific method. If that is not to ones liking....well, that's just too bad, and I'm sorry.

Quote

there is a clear and actionable causal link between it and average temperatures, despite the trace amounts of it comparable to other gases - which is measured from a variety of stations as well as from space, rather than just Mauna Loa. So, they already do exactly as you say.

The causal link is there, the question is whether it's the CO2 causes an increase in temperature or vice versa - and how long the lag is. I see your Skepticalscience (John Cook) and counter it with WattsUpWithThat (Anthony Watts; column by Tim Ball):

Quote

Up to that point  in the modern record (1998), the levels of atmospheric CO2 appeared to align with the rising temperature. Almost everybody overlooked the inconvenience that from 1940 to 1980 when the human production of CO2 increased the most, global temperatures went down. After 1998 the global temperatures stopped increasing while CO2 levels continued to increase in contradiction to their hypothesis. The excuses began quickly. It was a brief pause; it was an aberration; it was not a trend because it needed to last for an extended period to be significant. Santer said at least 17 years was required. Informatively, his fellow AGW proponents couldn’t wait as they faced the PR nightmare that the public began to notice the discrepancies between what they were saying and what was happening.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/empirical-evidence-shows-temperature-increases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/

 

We continue:

Quote

Hotter average temperatures could result in lack of food and potable water in a lot of different places resulting in knock-on effects

The issue here is that we have enough food to feed everyone (in the context of a warming planet), the issue is food distribution - and (bluntly speaking) cows:

https://awellfedworld.org/scarcity-vs-distribution/

 

Also, the globe is greening, so there is more potential for agricultural land again:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

So, more CO2 can have a benefit, eh?

 

Quote

the extinction of many other animal species and collapse of food webs (again, with knock-on effects)

Well, it remains to be seen whether the collapse is taking place and how much it'll affect us - given the fact that we've already lost an endless amount of species due to extinction in the past hundreds, thousands of years, we've adapted pretty well with our diet over time. Cloning might be an option, but there's ethical questions arising again.

 

Quote

...stronger weather phenomena resulting in greater extremes of heat, cold and wind in many different places, which won't exactly be good for infrastructure.

In the US for example, there's been a new low in amount of droughts in 2017:

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-drought-lowest-level-in-decade-21430

 

The amount of strong weather phenomenon may or may not increase, we're again in the land of computer models and predictions.

 

The infrastructure debate has already been touched upon, the main elements of more damage here are more expensive infrastructure and more extensive infrastructure, which both lead to higher rebuilding costs - as we build more and more, the amount of potential damage increases with it.

 

With regards to the peer process, I have amended my original post in order to be more clear.

Edited 8 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[Carl the Llama]

9 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Prussian out of interest, do you have any links to the scientific papers or journals your points are from?

 

I'd like to have a read through them to get a better understanding of your point.

Bringing this back to the front because I think MC "why won't you discuss my data" Prussian must have missed this comment.

[MC Prussian]

Begone, microplastics!

18-year old Irish lad develops technique to clean water from ugly debris:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/07/30/irish-teen-wins-2019-google-science-fair-for-removing-microplastics-from-water/

Edited 8 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Bringing this back to the front because I think MC "why won't you discuss my data" Prussian must have missed this comment.

I have brought up several links over the past few days and weeks that you seem to have missed.

 

But for what it's worth, I'll try to go into as much detail as possible in order to make my point clearer.

 

Since we're dealing with an enormous amount of data and sciences involved, it'll take a while, probably have to split it up in different parts and post it over the course of a longer period of time. And even then, I'll barely be scratching the surface.

It is, however, important that we do know more about the basics and examine the common misconceptions and some of the myths of climate science - this is by no means a personal attack on anybody. Let's state our findings and sources and take it from there. Hopefully, we'll be able to prolong or initiate a proper debate for the benefit of everyone. That should be in the interest of science also.

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The causal link is there, the question is whether it's the CO2 causes an increase in temperature or vice versa - and how long the lag is. I see your Skepticalscience (John Cook) and counter it with WattsUpWithThat (Anthony Watts; column by Tim Ball):

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/empirical-evidence-shows-temperature-increases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/

 

We continue:

The issue here is that we have enough food to feed everyone (in the context of a warming planet), the issue is food distribution - and (bluntly speaking) cows:

https://awellfedworld.org/scarcity-vs-distribution/

 

Also, the globe is greening, so there is more potential for agricultural land again:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

So, more CO2 can have a benefit, eh?

 

Well, it remains to be seen whether the collapse is taking place and how much it'll affect us - given the fact that we've already lost an endless amount of species due to extinction in the past hundreds, thousands of years, we've adapted pretty well with our diet over time. Cloning might be an option, but there's ethical questions arising again.

 

In the US for example, there's been a new low in amount of droughts in 2017:

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-drought-lowest-level-in-decade-21430

 

The amount of strong weather phenomenon may or may not increase, we're again in the land of computer models and predictions.

 

The infrastructure debate has already been touched upon, the main elements of more damage here are more expensive infrastructure and more extensive infrastructure, which both lead to higher rebuilding costs - as we build more and more, the amount of potential damage increases with it.

 

With regards to the peer process, I have amended my original post in order to be more clear.

Does Anthony Watts have any peer-reviewed papers that have been viewed by the scientific community that we can look at? Does he cite any?

 

Until then, he's as much an expert on this matter as you or I - certainly well-versed in wordsmithing but really a trustworthy member of the scientific community on this matter? Or is he some kind of rogue maverick taking on the system and hey, we should listen to him because of that?

 

John Cook, on the other hand, has numerous papers and citations - a check of Google Scholar confirms this.

 

Does the fact that the nature of the changes are uncertain really bother you so little that you feel continuing with the status quo is a good idea and let the dice fall where they may? I get that impression. Honestly, I think that's irresponsible, but then I guess I place a higher value on the future than other folks do.

 

I'm glad you amended your post, but it still shows a lack of respect for the scientists involved in the process by implying they're not competent enough to go through the proper peer-review process. I'd rather you flat-out say that rather than giving mere innuendo - at least we'd know where we stand.

 

 

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I have brought up several links over the past few days and weeks that you seem to have missed.

 

But for what it's worth, I'll try to go into as much detail as possible in order to make my point clearer.

 

Since we're dealing with an enormous amount of data and sciences involved, it'll take a while, probably have to split it up in different parts and post it over the course of a longer period of time. And even then, I'll barely be scratching the surface.

It is, however, important that we do know more about the basics and examine the common misconceptions and some of the myths of climate science - this is by no means a personal attack on anybody. Let's state our findings and sources and take it from there. Hopefully, we'll be able to prolong or initiate a proper debate for the benefit of everyone. That should be in the interest of science also.

Plenty of links...but no cited, peer-reviewed scientific papers - which are the bread and butter, after all.

 

Would be interesting to see.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49753680

 

Eish.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49753680

 

Eish.

Get outta here with your propaganda.  There's no consensus that we've done or can do anything about this natural and healthy climate change, just a few scientists in the pocket of the clean energy lobbyists trying further their lefty agenda of 'protecting our planet'.  Smh.