At this stage, this is a bit like saying: new report finds evidence that God did not create the world in seven days. It's no longer a matter of science, it's a matter of people choosing not to believe in science.
I think it'd be a challenge to even dig up a serious Internet comment that clearly stated this. If you think someone's saying this, be sure you're not just inferring it to make a strawman.
In any case, it's verifiable that nobody of consequence in the public policy debate on climate change is saying that the climate is perfectly static. The disagreements are about degrees, certainties, consequences, timelines, and appropriate responses.
This insistence on debating such a strawman looks really bad, I have to be honest. Why not "steelman" your opponent and argue against his best points, instead of "weakmanning" the dumbest things anyone on that side has ever said? It'd be a lot more productive.
While you're stubbornly clinging to semantics, the rest of us recognize that the debate is indeed about the severity and consequences of a rapidly changing climate. On one side is the consensus opinion that manmade emissions have artificially accelerated global warming, and the other says that CO2 has no effect on natural, periodic climate cycles. Is that pedantic enough for you? Can we move on?
>the rest of us recognize that the debate is indeed about the severity and consequences of a rapidly changing climate
And yet, your grandparent comment...
>the other says that CO2 has no effect on natural, periodic climate cycles
[Emphasis above mine] No, this absolutely is not what "the other side" says.
This is not about "semantics", it's a fundamental disconnect wherein people are talking past each other because they are stubbornly not acknowledging (or even aware) or what the others are saying. Your comment leads me to believe that it's not a tactic of any kind, but rather an internal perceptual distortion, which can only be solved by effort on the part of the perceiver.
Steelman your opponents, people. You can do so much better than this!
Well, except that a substantial percentage of Americans do believe that "God did ... create the world in seven days." Maybe they'll come around in another century or two. But maybe not, because maybe global civilization will have crashed by then. Either way, I'll be dead. So hey.
As a side note: Its 6 days, not 7. Day 7 (the Sabbath) was for resting.
As a longer thought:
God, as a omnipotent being, obviously doesn't need to rest, and given the idea that he (for lack of a better pronoun) is essentially keeping the universe running himself, the whole concept of 'God resting' is obviously (to me, and many others) poetic. Looking at the rest of the Genesis creation story through 'poetic narrative' lenses:
From the beginning of the universe until the start of human written history, we can divide it up into Eons (non-specific but LONG periods of time):
Eon 1:
- The universe was 'formless' and chaotic.
- Pure energy / light and darkness / vacuum / void become separate.
Eon 2:
- The planets and other 'heavenly bodies' or galaxies start to spin together into units.
- Planetary atmospheres form. (The separation between 'waters below' (the unknown depths of the sea) and 'waters above' (the vast 'ocean' of space') from a ).
Eon 3:
- Focussing on Earth, the planet surface began to stabilise, continents appear.
- Plants and other 'basic' forms of life begin to show up and spread all over the planet.
Eon 4:
- The moon shows up, the atmosphere clears up a bit, stars are now visible, the earths spin is now stable re. Day and Night.
Eon 5:
- Animals! Firstly water based, then birds. Maybe huge birds (dinosaurs?) No non-bird land-dwellers yet.
Eon 6:
- Land based animals, 'finally' humans showing up.
Eon 7:
- Now. Beginning of written histories.
The above pattern is a pretty strict interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, with most of the poetic stuff stripped out. It's kind of interesting how much of it does kind of map to our current understanding of the beginning of the universe and our planet.
Typical reinterpretation of Genesis 1. Unfortunately, the text also says: "it was the evening and the morning, the first day." i.e., the text goes out of the way to affirm that this was the task of a single day, not of an eon.
Well, kinda. What is an evening or morning when there is no sun, night, day time? More likely it's just a poetic turn of phrase.
What I find interesting is you can stick to "it's poetic, but modern scientific understanding can fit in happily" And aren't forced into saying, "science and Genesis are incompatible".
If you're going to claim poetic turn of phrase, you really have to look at the text in its original languages. There are many examples of strained translations or outright mistranslations for religious texts.
The word used in the original that was translated into English words for day, night, morning, and evening could very well be "an unspecified subjective length of time", "literally 86400 seconds", "literally 43200 seconds", "the timespan for which any portion of the sun is visible in the sky", "the interval between waking and going back to sleep", etc.
The objective reality is that Genesis is a myth written by primitive screwheads that predated the invention of scientific inquiry. Any similarity to any extant theories on the origin of the universe are purely coincidental, highlighted by human brains that are hardwired to find patterns and meaning even where genuine relationships do not exist. There is no shame in having a religion that makes no sense scientifically, provided that you can keep it separate from any matters that require rational thought grounded in observable reality.
Let the religion be what it is. Attempting to reconcile it with scientific theory is pointless, and ultimately a waste of time, because science may just discard that theory and take up another any time new data become available. Indeed, theories like the Big Bang only became widely known because they are remotely reconcilable with Genesis. It isn't the only cosmology theory capable of explaining all the available evidence, nor is it necessarily the best one. Reconciling religion with science makes as much sense as explaining the biological basis for Harry Potter.
It does not matter if religion is made-up nonsense. The important thing is the tribal sense of community one gets from knowing all the same nonsense as everyone else, and the artistic inspiration one may draw from it.
Believing one's religion is the literal truth and also believing that scientific inquiry is the best method at our disposal for understanding and affecting our universe is no more difficult than believing that Star Wars is set a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, while also believing that Star Trek is set a century or two in the future, in an alternate-history version of our own galaxy. We can simultaneously believe that all fantasy universes are separate, and never shall any two meet, and that they all somehow link together through the Stargate inside the Dark Tower.
Science and Genesis are incompatible. But they don't need to be compatible.
The poetic interpretation makes the most sense to me. These were a nomadic people living thousands of years ago with no concept of our modern scientific method, the big bang, or evolution. To interpret it literally, exclude the cultural context, and expect it to be a scientifically accurate description is a disservice to them.
There's no way to change the directional trend, but there are lots of things we can do to affect it's slope. Many of these things are also worth doing anyway for reasons such as energy security, resource and environmental preservation, reducing pollution, protecting biodiversity, etc. I do not believe crash course change in the global economy and our technology base is possible or desirable, were just going to have to live with and manage many of the negative consequences of climate change, but we can achieve a lot with sensible, moderate and achievable environmental policies provided they are pursued determinedly and consistently.
It would be great if you're right. But I've been watching this issue for decades. And I'm not optimistic. National US policy is worse than ever. China is starting to switch to renewables. But they're also cutting SO2 emissions, and that will increase radiative forcing.
We can also cool the earth via Sulfur Injection in the Stratosphere (like Vulcan eruptions demonstrated). German Spiegel[1] had an Article a few weeks ago that also mysteriously threatened international sanctions or war to countries who try that.
> WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.
If that's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely available temperature datasets? No credible person denies that the global (and U.S. local) mean temperature has increased, this is not news.
> The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
These are entirely separate claims. The author of the article is saying that the United States are warmer; then implying that the change is entirely man-made and detrimental to make a political point (in this case, a hit against President Trump, though I suppose it's a step in the right direction that NYT are now allowed to refer to the President as the President). (Edit: I should clarify that I'm talking about the link between the two clauses in this paragraph, which makes it seem like one supports the other when this is not the case)
> and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
It is limited, the report details the limits, as do many other great sources. The climate models we have are about as good as the economic models; that is to say, they're basically useless for genuine predictions. They do not fit historic data without piles of corrections, some of which are dubious. There is work to be done.
If you have data to back up your points, show the data. If you are making a point which is not supported by the data, don't use slight of hand to make it seem like it is.
The reason that there are so many people skeptical about the alarming claims, is because the presentations have been so dishonest and manipulative. Public figures frequently grossly overstate the certainty of statements which are not really settled, and some climate scientists and academic administrators have been caught basically ganging up on people who do not present alarming news.
I understand why some of you feel, as Fej says elsewhere in this thread, that "At this point, mass panic might be more effective than mass ignorance.", but it's important that we be honest in presenting what we know to the public.
Every time you present an opinion as a fact, somebody somewhere no longer trusts you, and those people will be vocal and active in letting people know that you've been dishonest.
> If you have data to back up your points, show the data. If you are making a point which is not supported by the data, don't use slight of hand to make it seem like it is.
Lisa said that mean temperatures rose, then mentioned that President Trump and his cabinet have said that "the human contribution is uncertain", that report (which I have read in its entirety) does not detail any way in which the (degree of) human contribution to climate change is "certain". The document has a helpful rubric for what they would consider "Virtually Certain" or "Extremely Likely" on page 9.
I'm just not satisfied with the link between the two clauses in that paragraph. One does not imply the other.
Read the article, it says that the report itself states that it is very likely that half of the increase in temperature (which has been observed in pretty much all data sets, this part is not controversial) is caused by human activity.
The article is not a jab at the Trump administration, it warns the reader that such a report exists, and that it may not be approved for publication by the administration, which, you may admit could be problematic.
We've devised methods to construct a temperature record going back millennia that shows a more or less constantly fluctuating temperature. Wouldn't it be weirder for that to come to a complete standstill?
I think that at this point if you don't believe climate change is happening and is man made and is significant then it is unlikely anything is going to convince you.
If that's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely available temperature datasets?
That was my point, Lisa presented this fact as though it's unique to the report. In this case, it's just background data, because anyone can look at temperature trends and let out a giant DUH when asked if the mean temperatures are rising.
Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with which bit is being argued, and your edit[1] has made it read differently now.
So you agree climate change is real and significant? Edit: Because plenty do deny that, although I agree they aren't credible. Your initial, unedited reply read just like that.
And you are just angry that the NYTimes posted that this report might not be released? Or something?
> Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with which bit is being argued, and your edit[1] has made it read differently now.
Apologies for the bad first draft, maybe it should have been embargoed. ;- )
> And you are just angry that the NYTimes posted that this report might not be released? Or something?
I'm unhappy with the tone and tenor of discussions and presentations of climate issues. The part that "97%" of climate scientists agree on is not disputed by the President or his Cabinet.
The agreement is basically a) that the global mean temperature has increased dramatically, b) that atmospheric carbon dioxide increase has almost certainly had an effect, and finally c) that humans have sufficiently affected the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide to consider that these emissions account for a measurable portion of the temperature increase.
Almost everything else is very much up for debate, and when people present some additional assertions as verified fact, the curious people notice that they're being dishonest, and wonder what else they're being dishonest about.
For example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson once quite regularly told people that if the ice caps melt, the water level will be above the elbow of the statue of liberty. As far as I can tell, this does not match the models, it doesn't make sense, and it makes everything these public "science guy" types say utterly suspect.
The gripe I was hoping (and failing) to get across was that even a subtle misrepresentation or overstatement can cast doubt on your entire presentation. This, I think, is a common and grave mistake of people who present on issues which appear to divide people. When combined with smugness, any (otherwise factual) presentation can instantly convert mildly curious people into rebels.
For example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson once quite regularly told people that if the ice caps melt, the water level will be above the elbow of the statue of liberty. As far as I can tell, this does not match the models, it doesn't make sense, and it makes everything these public "science guy" types say utterly suspect.
Not sure what your problem is here. The Statue of Liberty is 90M tall, and if Antarctica and Greenland melt then estimates are that sea level will rise between 60M and 70M.
It's unknown how likely the icecap melt is, but plenty of scenarios lead to significant ice-cap break up by 2100.
Source observations are provided as originally reported and will contain many quality control and redundancy issues. Intermediate data is constructed from the source data by merging redundant records, identifying a variety of quality control problems, and creating monthly averages from daily reports when necessary.
You can choose to use breakpoint adjusted or not, the data is all there.
> > The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
These are entirely separate claims. The author of the article is saying that the United States are warmer; then implying that the change is entirely man-made and detrimental to make a political point (in this case, a hit against President Trump, though I suppose it's a step in the right direction that NYT are now allowed to refer to the President as the President).
- I think that paragraph is a little confusing. It might be better as "It _also_ directly contradicts claims" - ie the first sentence is not tied to the second sentence, even though I could see how it might at first read that way.
> then implying that the change is entirely man-made
Where did you get this? Some direct quotes from the article, emphasis added:
"…human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change."
"…it is possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change."
"…significant advances have been made linking human influence to individual extreme weather events since the last National Climate Assessment was produced in 2014. Still, it notes, crucial uncertainties remain."
"…“relatively strong evidence” showed that a man-made factor contributed to the extreme weather."
"Worldwide, the draft report finds it “extremely likely” that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 can be linked to human influence."
"Human activity, the report goes on to say, is a primary culprit."
Nothing here comes close to asserting that the change is entirely man-made. In fact, the article is quite careful to avoid saying that, over and over again.
This doesn't require an especially close reading to discover. Rather, you would have to go out of your way to distort what the article is saying in order to reach the conclusion that you did.
FWIW, I doubt you're engaging in this distortion on purpose. More likely it's a subconscious reaction to encountering information that you don't want to be true.
I don't think @microcolonel is an astroturfer, he just seems to be fairly right leaning in his views.
I'm always a bit surprised by this, you would think the right would be fairly conservative about environmental issues. I guess it's because big business/oil has done such a good job of buying the politicians off.
Frankly I'm just annoyed that the way climate issues are presented is basically perfectly engineered to convince deniers that they're on to something.
In addition, there's a smugness high horsery which doesn't appeal to the kinds of folk who get swept up in these delusions. I notice the same problem with the anti-vax crowd, where a lot of the public has basically resorted to brushing them off and engaging in ritual defamation, instead of trying to be persuasive. The poor kids who grow up with anti-vax parents who will become less and less interested in vaccine the more people tell them they're dumb.
> ...he just seems to be fairly right leaning in his views.
I'm a Liberal Conservative. That is to say, I am interested in conserving Classical Liberalism: equal opportunity, free markets, free expression, personal sovereignty. For example, I see border protection as begrudging but necessary, and only because we have attractive social programmes. If the social programmes are not attractive then we can go back to 1918 (on that issue alone) when there was effectively no border. On social matters (consensual goings on in private bedrooms, the purchase of goods and services such as drugs and sex or guns and hair styling) I don't think the government should have a say. Ideally a society should have some voluntary social core though, since it seems societies without some level of social cohesion tend to collapse into nothing rather quickly.
My observation about conservatives on this issue has been that they become defensive when they hear "conservatives have caused global warming with their capitalism, and the only solution is to repudiate the entire conservative world view". It's only human to deny the problem exists in the first place if they are made to believe the choice is between denying the problem and adopting a world view they find untenable.
> My observation about conservatives on this issue has been that they become defensive when they hear "conservatives have caused global warming with their capitalism, and the only solution is to repudiate the entire conservative world view".
Indeed. Things get particularly ludicrous when you hear people saying that Communism or something like it is the only way to avoid damaging the planet; there was no pollution like Communist pollution, and the Left was hostile to the first Earth Day -- it felt too much like Hitler.
I've heard the expression "watermelons" applied to a lot of this: people who are Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
" The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration."
i.e. if Trump's administration does not approve it, it does not exist :D
With the public draft already released, I think it would be especially surprising if the administration tried to impose non-trivial changes to the document.
Saving the environment is great. However, why does the solution always seem to involve the U.S paying hundreds of billions to a supranational entity that is unaccountable as was outlined in the Paris accord? The rubber always seems to hit the road on climate change with a global tax, levied mostly on the U.S, paid to a global government.
Let's fund solar power and electric cars and ways to use energy more efficiently, great. However, why is it that if one thinks it's a bad idea to set up an unacountable global entity with a multi-billion dollar budget one is accused of being anti-science?
So you're turning being held accountable into somehow furthering lack of accountability. Not that I think the agreement is super perfect, but that still sticks out like a sore thumb.
> Let's fund solar power and electric cars
You've always been free to do that. You still are. Instead of, say, waging a war of aggression for control of oil, littering the world with military bases, all the while complaining about the specter of a "world government" -- which is anything but the US desires of hegemony, right? No problem with the main superpower being a brute instead of a boon, but a huge problem with the means to defend ourselves. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=49m38s , and for now in general I'll just say "no". Not good enough. Too little, too late.
It's weird how some people seem to think the only two alternatives are neo-con world empire or give all our money to some other guys who aren't accountable to the U.S taxpayer or hardly anyone at all. Can't the American government do pro-climate things itself instead of paying money to someone else whose only qualification is that they don't have any reputation yet for corruption because they haven't done anything yet?
what are you talking about? there's no tax in the paris accord.
Do you mean the fund to help countries affected by climate change? that countries can voluntarily donate money to. They can put anything they want into it, even $0. Those pledges aren't even enforced. A country can pledge whatever, and change their mind later.
You've literally made up several things: a tax; hundreds of billions of dollars; an unaccountable global entity... none of it in the paris accord. I assume that's why you're being accused of being anti-science (if that was really a mystery to you).
> They can put anything they want into it, even $0. Those pledges aren't even enforced. A country can pledge whatever, and change their mind later.
Sounds like unlimited vacation. If anybody is trying to sell you something that's "free," you're probably getting a bad deal.
Especially if the only reason it's free for other participants is because they don't expect it to be free for you.
I didn't even say anything about global warming, only the fallibility of such an open-ended agreement structure. I wonder why I'll get down-voted hmm...
"Some analysts say the final figure for worldwide compliance with the Paris pledges would be in the trillions of dollars. U.N. officials estimated that it would cost at least $100 billion per year, and that figure could rise to more than $400 billion per year by 2020 to ensure compliance"
Are we going to sign a treaty and spend $0 to comply with it? Is this all supposed to be symbolic? China and Japan and other major economies had not pledged any money toward the treaty while Obama had committed to 3 billion according to the article.
The cost of say, moving Miami and New Orleans would more expensive (ok well, impossible), or reversing the global food chain collapse, or de-acidifying the oceans, these are all currently either impossible or we would need to find some inadequate non-solution in the future costing far more. These problems will only get worse. If they were addressed in the 70s when they were first known about, it'd have been much easier.
Yes, halting the destruction of the planet's ecosystem will cost some money darlin'. And it will always be more tomorrow.
Wait, didnt you write this above: "Let's fund solar power and electric cars and ways to use energy more efficiently, great."
What do you think that is? That's a compliance cost.
You seem to be saying on one hand, "I object to paris accord, lets spend money on climate change ourselves" and then saying "I object to all spending on climate change"
Paris does not force anyone to spend anything or do anything. The goals are all decided by the country itself. The methods used to obtain those goals are also decided by the country itself.
And I'll say again, the Green Climate Fund is completely voluntary. If you dont like it, dont donate to it. And if you don't donate to it, then what is the objection? That other countries might donate to it?
If you're objecting to all spending on climate change, and to a voluntary fund... why not just be straight and say you don't believe in climate change? That would save everyone a lot of time.
That the U.S is the only one who donates meaningfully to it and it is basically a slush fund for corruption outside of U.S political control. Why can't the U.S just give grants on a case by case basis to other countries? That money is going to just get squandered and feed corruption if it goes to a U.N body and it won't help the environment. We do get to buy indulgences from the U.N for our overconsumption sins so at least we'll feel better while the climate outcome is the same!
Ideally I'd like to see some foreign aid given out to fund solar energy and wind projects in developing countries with maybe a joint partnership with a U.S operator getting to run the thing so it contributes to our economic development as well. This would actually be a pretty good plan. We could even do it as a loan paid back over a very long period of time by the electricity fees generated so it would generate a positive trade balance over time. Maybe we could build hyperloops and such in developing countries first where there is a drastically lower cost of construction in a joint venture before trying to build them here?
First, no one contributes significantly to the climate fund (and it probably wont be until theres significant damage from climate change). The goal was $100b.. the US has pledged $3b, and EU countries have pledged $4.7B.
2nd, it is not outside of US political control. Countries do not pay all of their pledges into the fund. They make payments, basically as needed. The projects that are funded are public. If the US does not like the projects, the President can just refuse to contribute anything else to the fund. I imagine, the US could just earmark funds too (what are they going to do? refuse money? doubt it.) If that's not good enough, the US can always just contribute nothing.
Paris was signed by so many countries because it is completely symbolic. There's no enforcement of anything, and any pledge or goal is entirely up to the country.
Your plan sounds like a good idea.. put an estimate of the amount of carbon that reduces... and you've just created a goal to reduce carbon (just like in Paris!).
In Paris, what happens if your idea turns out to be ineffective? Nothing. What happens if you change your mind? Nothing. What happens if you want to do it differently? Nothing.
That's literally what a carbon goal in Paris is... a vague non-specific plan with a carbon estimate.. that you can change later.
Because Paris forces nothing on to anyone.. the question it really answers is, do politicians/reps of the countries believe in climate change?
Trump has said he believes it's a fraud, completely made up. That's why he withdrew. He has fired climate change scientists, and demanded agencies no longer research the climate, and has removed funds from those agencies for climate change. He has left the heads of scientific agencies completely vacant (no nominations). He doesn't have a plan to accomplish it some other way -- he plans to do nothing. If there was a plan, he could just make that our new paris goal.
First, the Paris accords does not create a body which enforces it. Second, there is no tax, there's however a fund to help countries affected very severely by climate change, feel free to donate how much you want.
And third, we in the rest of the world have had it with America's vague promises to better themselves, which they promptly call into question by building more pipelines and start exploiting oil shales. You've exhausted your trust in this matter, if we're going to trust you, put it in writing this time. But your administration decided just doing that was too much, that's why we're mighty pissed outside of the US.
If there was a small corporation or govt project that came up with some technology to really put a dent in the whole climate change thing, but the demography was typical of these things, that Manhattan project, not real "diverse!"
(sidenote: What exactly is the metric by which climate change is solved?)
So in this hypothetical scenario of this small group of world saving engineers, would the whole thing fail to get off the ground because some blue hair SJW would take umbrage with some aspect of the groups's identity and twitter mobs would rain down on them like hell fire?
If I understand it correctly, if it is implemented correctly, a few benefits are that it would:
- Reduce the validity of any climate change denier claims that climate change is actually a political scheme to redistribute wealth from the developed world to the rest of the developing world.
- It would also reallocate carbon tax proceeds towards making the developed world into a leader in climate change prevention solutions.
A carbon tax is the single best possible carbon policy. If implemented well, it
- simultaneously provide the mosts efficient incentives to reduce carbon emissions by shifting the cost onto exactly the people who are offending.
- and provides the funds to compensate the victims of climate change (every human), plus spare change for fundamental research into new Green tech which too unproven to be viable as a startup (would nuclear power ever have been created from scratch by the market?).
It also makes sense to tax SOx, NOx, and other air pollutants for exactly the same reason. However, the time scale and magnitude of those problems are nowhere near as dire.
I feel as though you may be implying the carbon tax is applied to industry and in policy that's correct, but in practice the carbon tax is passed onto the consumer. Sometimes unashamedly so. I'm not saying it's a bad thing mind you, less consumption is what we need.
Australia trialled this. I say trialled, because our government has been such a flip flop of agendas (and indeed leaders) for nearly a decade and it was only around for 3 years before being repealed. No doubt we'll see it again soon, and I look forward to rehashing the same tired debates, albeit in slightly warmer weather, when that occurs.
I totally agree, and alluded to that in my comment. I just felt like perhaps the comment I replied to was implying that industry bares the cost.
Whether we figure out a less carbon intensive way or just consume less, I think we can agree the benefits are the same.
I have a pet theory that we've reached a kind of "Peak Comfort". While commerce and industry yearns for more revenue, I hope that at some point the average consumer will start to say "Hey, this is probably enough comfort for me, I should focus on other things in my life." Whether that manifests in using less electricity, buying fewer fancy technology bits or sticking with their current car a few more years. Perhaps that is a naive hope, I am not sure.
When the consumer has a choice in products, the costs of each integrates the carbon costs to the environment. When all options have heavy carbon taxes it encourages new product development.
You're right, but the dividend portion of the plan linked in the top parent is meant to address the consumer's added cost. Poorer people would see higher benefit since they spend the least on carbon products but the revenue is returned equally.
A plan such as tax-and-dividend or cap-and-dividend also breaches the political divide and shows that both sides can get what they want in a single sensible system. Yes, certain lawmakers will still spitefully resist as they always do.
I think the idea put forth in the Conservatives for Climate Change Action is that instead of the proceeds from the carbon tax accessed on US carbon producers (and indirectly average US consumers/citizens) going to developing countries for unspecified environmental activity (Obama pledge the US would provide $1B to developing countries), the carbon tax proceeds would be pumped back into the US economy via annual $4000 dividend going to average US consumers/citizens.
$1B is pocket change. $1B divided over the US population is about $3 (once? or per year? it doesn't matter).
So... US citizens get a $3997 dividend. Or slightly less, if we want to fund research into say, Thorium reactors, smarter power grids, solar cells, power storage, wind, etc.
And what additional efforts should we take to reduce the validity of any Birther's claims that Obama was actually born in Kenya? Obama releasing his birth certificate made as much difference as the National Climate Assessment leaking this report. What more evidence will they demand before graciously changing their minds to fit the facts? Don't those people's unfounded politically motivated conspiracy theories deserve just as much respect as the claims of climate change deniers, too? /s
I don't know why this is being downvoted when it's the key point: disbelief in climate change is a matter of political allegiance, not "validity" in the normal sense.
You understood my point exactly. Sarcasm aside, Obamacare is "a proposal from a conservative group", too.
The people who lie about Obamacare are the exact same people who lie about global warming, and the exact same people who lie about Obama being born in Kenya and being a Muslim. Their motivations for all of those lies are exactly the same: identity politics and demonstrating political allegiance.
They're mendacious unsupportable lies uninformed and unaffected by evidence, because they very well know and cherish the fact that what they say is not true, yet they hysterically pretend to believe it, and scoff and ignore all evidence to the contrary, so no amount of appeasement or logical argument or irrefutable proof will change their minds, and they will only Gish Gallop faster and demand even more irrefutable evidence, just to waste your time. Don't fall for their trap.
The bald faced liar who decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is the exact same sociopath who said about Obama being born in Kenya: “I have people that actually have been studying it and they cannot believe what they’re finding,” Trump told host Meredith Vieira. “You have people now down there searching, I mean in Hawaii?” she asked. “Absolutely,” he replied. “And they cannot believe what they’re finding.” [1] And there is absolutely no evidence that he ever sent any investigators to Hawaii [2], just like there is absolutely no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. Evidence doesn't matter.
When ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos asked him about the investigators later that month, Trump refused to say what they had found.
“It’s none of your business right now,” he said. “We are going to see what happens.”
CNN’s Anderson Cooper also confronted him about the investigation that month.
“Can you name even one person who your investigators have talked to?” Cooper asked.
“I don’t want to do that right now,” Trump said. “It’s not appropriate right now.”
Tana Goertz, Trump’s Iowa campaign chair and a former “Apprentice” contestant, said last year that the candidate would reveal his findings “when the time is right.”
“He’s never told you about it? You’ve never asked him about it? It was unbelievable and you weren’t curious about it?” asked MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.
“Never was curious once, because he’s not a liar. If they found something, it will come out. The time isn’t right, and guess what? Mr. Trump does what he wants and he’s not going to do it on our time,” she replied.
This sounds like a great idea. The best part is it gets the government out of managing, so that the market can best operate based on properly-aligned incentives.
There is one thing I didn't understand:
"American companies exporting to countries without comparable carbon pricing would receive rebates on the carbon taxes they’ve paid on those products"
Wouldn't that subsidise and hence encourage exports to these counties? That would benefit the economy of those countries. I don't think that is desired.
Consumption is already subsidized in those countries by not internalizing the carbon externality. The border adjustment puts US exports on a level playing field with other products in that country, saving the distortionary effects of imbalanced taxes. Meanwhile, the import tax adjustment makes sure that goods from that non-complying country aren't at an unfair advantage.
But of course optimally all countries pass a similar carbon tax in the medium term so border adjustments are unnecessary.
I'm not sure more subsidies are the best way to combat subsidies. I worry such export subsidies will cause consumers in those countries to increase consumption and make those countries reluctant to pass a similar tax.
Those countries already have outsized consumption because carbon externalities are not priced in. Failing to border adjust a domestic US carbon tax would incentivize them to import less, not necessarily consume less.
This sounds like a great idea. The best part is it gets the government out of managing, so that the market can best operate based on properly-aligned incentives.
There is one thing I didn't understand:
"American companies exporting to countries without comparable carbon pricing would receive rebates on the carbon taxes they’ve paid on those products"
Wouldn't that subsidise and hence encourage exports to these counties? That would benefit the economy of those countries. I don't think that is desired.
I'm certainly not an expert in the domain of "climate change", but it doesn't appear to be difficult to find reviews of the subject that come to different conclusions than reached by the NYT.
For example, here's a recently published paper authored by qualified individuals and the conclusion endorsed by several reviewers [0]. Bottom line was that "Global Average Surface Temperature" data was not credible and that "... it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever-–despite current claims of record setting warming."
This analysis and others leave the impression the subject of climate is not "conclusively settled" nor without legitimate controversy as to how data is interpreted and used for predicting future trends.
It's a shame that important research has become a "football" kicked around wildly for political advantage rather than being left in the realm of authentic scientific study for as long as necessary to understand the processes of Nature that we call "climate".
It's published on wordpress.com, non-peer reviewed etc.
There is a range of credible opinions on some aspect of climate change (for example, the impact of water vapor around cities on measurement). It's probably worth concentrating on the ones which have at least been peer reviewed.
True enough, I didn't check out the authors or those endorsing the report. The report wasn't from a peer-reviewed journal, but then neither is the NYT or Snopes.
The analysis could be considered on its merit. I'd leave that to people better qualified in that field than I am.
We'd expect bias, that's entirely normal in all research. But the deep polarization of the scientific community considering climate data and findings is symptomatic of the absurd political influence on the field. The extreme level of viciousness surrounding climate research has to render all of it suspect in any honest observer's mind.
I understand the article wasn't peer-reviewed, it was only an example of the absurd level of polarization that has distorted the scientific process in climate research.
However, it must be said "peer review" is no guarantee of scientific purity, the peer review system is subject to being gamed and can exhibit severe bias against unconventional approaches or novel findings.
One version is the "file-drawer effect", operative in a range of science publishing. For example, accepting drug studies showing positive results but not those where drug treatment doesn't separate from placebo gives a falsely favorable impression of the effectiveness of the drug.
Logically we could assert that in the presence of bias toward publishing climate studies supporting warming vs. reports not showing warming, the credibility of widely quoted results becomes questionable.
It's natural, healthy and desirable for serious students of a subject to disagree. OTOH whenever political force imposes suppression of opposing points of view the process of science grinds to a halt, leaving only pseudo-scientific mythology in its place.
The conclusions here are obvious to anyone that's been living in the US in the last decade or two. It's not that difficult to see/feel the changing weather patterns. So why does it need approval? This is science. What kind of science needs approval? If the government agencies want to dispute this, let them put forward a different hypothesis from the data. This authoritarian monopoly that various government agencies have on science has got to stop. It's not just climate change. Facts like cannabis being a safe substance, lead being dangerous, etc. are/were ignored for decades. It seems to me government funds studies and then ignores their conclusions. This is clearly not in the interest of society. At the very least it's an absolute waste of money. Will the government ever represent the people and their interests or is it just too far gone for that to the point that we're stuck with the interests of a few assholes controlling and ruining everything?
> So why does it need approval? This is science. What kind of science needs approval?
One word: Capital.
There's a hell of a lot of money tied up in the carbon industry, and maintaining the status-quo for that section of the capital class is predicated on not acknowledging climate change.
Because it is not really about the science. What people differ on is the level of moral responsibility we hold.
Some people simply reject the moral imperative to protect the environment. And science does not help in that argument. You cannot scientifically prove that someone should care about a moral issue. They have to understand at a more intuitive and emotional level first. This takes time and is messy (see every contentious political issue ever).
I see arguments here that people can readily feel a change.
I have to admit, I don't see it. It's been an unusually calm summer where I'm at. We haven't had a summer with several days over 100F in quite a few years. If anything, it's been less hot.
But I'll surely give the report a read. It is an important topic.
Only thing I could really point to is a number of incredibly mild winters a few years in a row. But even then, I was under the impression that climate change wasn't particularly measurable on a year-by-year scale. Maybe I'm wrong.
Just because the individual changes aren't going to be noticeable year over year, doesn't mean the cumulative changes won't hit tipping points for noticeable effects to occur in certain cases.
Just like people won't notice the sea levels changing each year. But at some point, flooding is going to go from a rare occurrence to a regular occurrence once the sea level raises past a certain point.
In Europe, we're facing ridiculously hot summer back where I come from and very mild winters for a few years in a row.
To give an example - parents have a small garden, living in the valley under mountains. Till about 2-3 years back it was impossible to plant outside twice a year like near mediterranean, it was simply too cold for too long. My 90 year old grandparents never ever could do that, now they can. We're facing bugs (ie ticks) which were never there before. Winters moved from +-4 months of solid snowy winter to few weeks of snow and a lot of cold rain. And of course glaciers are retreating at ridiculous rate, ie 10m/year.
It is hard to notice the gradual changes, and we tend to give too much weight to the natural variance in the weather.
A conversation I had with an older East coast snow ski instructor was illuminating. The ski season is a few weeks shorter than it was 30 years ago. That's real economic impact.
This is anecdotal but winters in Vermont (where I grew up) and Chicago (where I live now) are almost snow less now. I think it snowed once last year in Chicago and three or four times the year before. I haven't noticed it being aggressively hotter in the summer but It's been much warmer in the winters.
Just do some research into the trends, it's been enough to convince me: nuisance flooding along the east coast, number of regional summer days in the 90s, sea levels have been rising but the rate is now increasing, satellite imagery of the antarctic, recession of glaciers, and then notice how all these trends correlate with the increase of atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. Rather than the headlining global trends, I think it's more impactful to see how climate change affects different regions.
Does anyone else get irked when articles use photos of nuclear power plants when talking about pollution or climate change? I'm certainly no expert, but my understand was that the 'exhaust' from nuclear plants is just water vapor and with the exception of finding a place to store spent rods, it's an incredibly green source of energy and has little to no bearing on climate change?
Are you sure that is a nuclear plant? It looks like coal to me. The big thick columns are water vapour - you are right there, but the tall thin exhausts are for carbon. They don't look like they are being used, but they are (they often don't produce anything visible even when they are running at a fair clip).
I was under the impression that any power plant that uses a source of high temperatures to operate would also benefit from a water cooling system with a hyperbolic cooling tower. It improves the efficiency for whatever it is you're doing on the hot end.
They're just iconic for nuclear power plants for some reason, to the point where some people mistake the cooling tower for a building containing a nuclear reactor. And this discourages their construction at other types of power plant, because people freak out about nuclear plants in their backyard. And obviously they aren't used where water cooling would be prohibitively expensive.
Not any. I used to live near nuclear and coal power plants (two different plants about 15 miles away from each other). Both were located right on the Mississippi river to take advantage of the river water for cooling. Most neighbors when asked where the nuclear plant was would point to the smoke stacks on the coal plant even though the nuclear plant was only a mile away and the coal plant was 15 miles away.
> The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air.
The enormous effort put toward finding "confirmations" of the hypothesis has always been a big reason why I'm reluctant to trust the authorities in this case. I don't see the point of going through this again. Where are the falsifiable predictions? Will the Arctic Ocean be ice-free next month? We're back to point number one from Karl Popper's essay:
"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory- if we look for confirmations."
That's the argument tobacco companies used. They'd find one counterexample of someone who smoked 70 years and say "Aha! No cancer here! Tobacco is safe!"
I mean seriously, find a new strategy, that one is from the 60s.
I work in cleantech, and here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"
So what can _you_ do about it? Work at a new energy technology company!
Many cleantech sectors are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth, and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers (including mine). See my comment history for links to cleantech jobs.
As for dealing with skeptics, remember that you can't reason someone out of a place they didn't reason themselves into. Focus on emotion, and don't tell them what to do (instead, paint an environment where they naturally come to aligned conclusion).
Here's several ways to work with climate skeptics:
1. If you know them well and they have kids or grandkids, learn their names and talk about how life is going to get much harder for them if we don't make the energy transition. Talk about how many jobs the energy transition will make (solar already outnumbers coal jobs). Focus on the opportunity for their kids. Try to paint climate change as a us-vs-the-harsh-fucking-world (rather than what they currently think of as an us-vs-liberals-and-hippies). This perspective can make them feel like they are betraying their kids and grandkids. I've seen this work for family members and close friends.
2. If they like focusing on the economic/subsidy arguments, make it competitive and selfish. Talk about how it's going to be their loss and your gain ("if you're not going to do anything about climate change, that's more money and work for me, so thanks!"). Focus on building a situation where they get left behind. Then pile on that more Republicans have installed solar than Democrats (which is true, by the way), so it feels like their own team is already on board. Shrug off all the economic and subsidy arguments with a, "Meh, if you don't want in on it, more upside for me. You complaining just makes me richer." I've seen this work for tea party friends.
I have no facts to back this up (hopefully the other guy does) but intuitively it makes sense to me. If you think about political maps, which areas are almost always blue, and which areas are almost always red? Cities lean democrat, and cities also often have higher density living. If I'm in an apartment, I can't install solar panels. I have no where to install them.
But if I live in a rural or suburban area and have an acre+ of land and a single-family house, I have a roof and a backyard I can fill with solar panels. I probably also have a less reliable electricity grid than in the city, so getting power somewhere else is helpful. I'm also much more likely to vote Republican.
Also there is a higher proportion of Republican party supporters in some southern states, where being closer to the equator improves the value proposition of installing solar cells - because of lower time to paying off the investment (so there may be a financial gain in having them installed even if you don't accept the overall climate argument).
From a similar angle, wind power's greatest onshore potential in the United States is roughly speaking the Great Plains region. Most of the states that lead in the percentage of power supplied by wind are Republican dominated. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_State...)
Wind turbines in my opinion make great sense for farmers and ranch owners. Turbines (which often are installed via leases to the power companies) often offer a reliable, steady source of income to this group (compared to commodity prices, which are very volatile). There's also less potential for NIMBY issues in rural locations, in my opinion.
At its core, I think anti-environmental politics is often largely a central distrust of government regulations, in my opinion. Renewable energy in itself should not really have a political tag (unless one is too deep into political tribalism to notice). Such is already a profitable prospect in many places today.
And that's just the residential sector. If you add in businesses and utilities, who's executives are overwhelmingly Republican, it tips the scale way over to Republican.
Nowadays, people buy solar for economic reasons, not environmental ones.
Your talking points are all really good. Along the same lines, I built www.writegreen.org to help people express their support for sustainability from a variety of ideological perspectives, including conservative, religious and economic opportunities.
Skeptic is the wrong word, being skeptical is a component of critical thinking. Climate deniers are engaged in denialism. Other examples are flat earthers, and alt-right. They're not exploring alternatives critically, they're attached to the rejection of established reasoning for no discernible reason, and it's the opposite of critical thinking, a rejection of epistemology.
There is a distinction between "belief in" things that are not falsifiable, such as religious beliefs; and "belief that" which is knowable and evidence based. And denialists conflate these things, and become emotionally attached to belief in rejection of facts. So they spend a lot of brain cycles on myriad conspiracy theories to deny the conventional wisdom. What they claim to believe in as an alternative is more of a "by default" position rather than a sincere belief. e.g. if you ask flat earthers if they really think a person falls off the disk if they walk to the edge of the earth, or if there really is a giant wall of ice that mankind has never figured out how to climb, if we've never really been able to find out what's on the other side of the flat earth, they totally get stuck. They spend way way more time trying to disprove the convention, than the prove their position. It's a negative position, not one of advocacy.
151 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadWhat you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists. Nobody disputes this.
The headline describes "drastic impact of climate change on U.S" happening today.
"X exists" != "X is drastically affecting America today"
Plenty of people, even on HN deny that climate change is happening.
In any case, it's verifiable that nobody of consequence in the public policy debate on climate change is saying that the climate is perfectly static. The disagreements are about degrees, certainties, consequences, timelines, and appropriate responses.
This insistence on debating such a strawman looks really bad, I have to be honest. Why not "steelman" your opponent and argue against his best points, instead of "weakmanning" the dumbest things anyone on that side has ever said? It'd be a lot more productive.
And yet, your grandparent comment...
>the other says that CO2 has no effect on natural, periodic climate cycles
[Emphasis above mine] No, this absolutely is not what "the other side" says.
This is not about "semantics", it's a fundamental disconnect wherein people are talking past each other because they are stubbornly not acknowledging (or even aware) or what the others are saying. Your comment leads me to believe that it's not a tactic of any kind, but rather an internal perceptual distortion, which can only be solved by effort on the part of the perceiver.
Steelman your opponents, people. You can do so much better than this!
Extreme right position held by POTUS and the like: climate change is a hoax and humans aren't responsible for changes in climate.
Chair of house science committe: Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant and climate isn't significantly sensitive to manmade emissions
EPA: extreme whether events don't signify a trend, economic concerns are more important than regulations
I'd be satisfied if politicians just quit playing scientists and started making policy decisions instead of steering/filtering scientific results.
As a side note: Its 6 days, not 7. Day 7 (the Sabbath) was for resting.
As a longer thought: God, as a omnipotent being, obviously doesn't need to rest, and given the idea that he (for lack of a better pronoun) is essentially keeping the universe running himself, the whole concept of 'God resting' is obviously (to me, and many others) poetic. Looking at the rest of the Genesis creation story through 'poetic narrative' lenses:
From the beginning of the universe until the start of human written history, we can divide it up into Eons (non-specific but LONG periods of time):
Eon 1: - The universe was 'formless' and chaotic. - Pure energy / light and darkness / vacuum / void become separate.
Eon 2: - The planets and other 'heavenly bodies' or galaxies start to spin together into units. - Planetary atmospheres form. (The separation between 'waters below' (the unknown depths of the sea) and 'waters above' (the vast 'ocean' of space') from a ).
Eon 3: - Focussing on Earth, the planet surface began to stabilise, continents appear. - Plants and other 'basic' forms of life begin to show up and spread all over the planet.
Eon 4: - The moon shows up, the atmosphere clears up a bit, stars are now visible, the earths spin is now stable re. Day and Night.
Eon 5: - Animals! Firstly water based, then birds. Maybe huge birds (dinosaurs?) No non-bird land-dwellers yet.
Eon 6: - Land based animals, 'finally' humans showing up.
Eon 7: - Now. Beginning of written histories.
The above pattern is a pretty strict interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, with most of the poetic stuff stripped out. It's kind of interesting how much of it does kind of map to our current understanding of the beginning of the universe and our planet.
What do you think?
The word used in the original that was translated into English words for day, night, morning, and evening could very well be "an unspecified subjective length of time", "literally 86400 seconds", "literally 43200 seconds", "the timespan for which any portion of the sun is visible in the sky", "the interval between waking and going back to sleep", etc.
The objective reality is that Genesis is a myth written by primitive screwheads that predated the invention of scientific inquiry. Any similarity to any extant theories on the origin of the universe are purely coincidental, highlighted by human brains that are hardwired to find patterns and meaning even where genuine relationships do not exist. There is no shame in having a religion that makes no sense scientifically, provided that you can keep it separate from any matters that require rational thought grounded in observable reality.
Let the religion be what it is. Attempting to reconcile it with scientific theory is pointless, and ultimately a waste of time, because science may just discard that theory and take up another any time new data become available. Indeed, theories like the Big Bang only became widely known because they are remotely reconcilable with Genesis. It isn't the only cosmology theory capable of explaining all the available evidence, nor is it necessarily the best one. Reconciling religion with science makes as much sense as explaining the biological basis for Harry Potter.
It does not matter if religion is made-up nonsense. The important thing is the tribal sense of community one gets from knowing all the same nonsense as everyone else, and the artistic inspiration one may draw from it.
Believing one's religion is the literal truth and also believing that scientific inquiry is the best method at our disposal for understanding and affecting our universe is no more difficult than believing that Star Wars is set a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, while also believing that Star Trek is set a century or two in the future, in an alternate-history version of our own galaxy. We can simultaneously believe that all fantasy universes are separate, and never shall any two meet, and that they all somehow link together through the Stargate inside the Dark Tower.
Science and Genesis are incompatible. But they don't need to be compatible.
[1] http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-geoengi...
If that's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely available temperature datasets? No credible person denies that the global (and U.S. local) mean temperature has increased, this is not news.
> The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
These are entirely separate claims. The author of the article is saying that the United States are warmer; then implying that the change is entirely man-made and detrimental to make a political point (in this case, a hit against President Trump, though I suppose it's a step in the right direction that NYT are now allowed to refer to the President as the President). (Edit: I should clarify that I'm talking about the link between the two clauses in this paragraph, which makes it seem like one supports the other when this is not the case)
> and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
It is limited, the report details the limits, as do many other great sources. The climate models we have are about as good as the economic models; that is to say, they're basically useless for genuine predictions. They do not fit historic data without piles of corrections, some of which are dubious. There is work to be done.
If you have data to back up your points, show the data. If you are making a point which is not supported by the data, don't use slight of hand to make it seem like it is.
The reason that there are so many people skeptical about the alarming claims, is because the presentations have been so dishonest and manipulative. Public figures frequently grossly overstate the certainty of statements which are not really settled, and some climate scientists and academic administrators have been caught basically ganging up on people who do not present alarming news.
I understand why some of you feel, as Fej says elsewhere in this thread, that "At this point, mass panic might be more effective than mass ignorance.", but it's important that we be honest in presenting what we know to the public.
Every time you present an opinion as a fact, somebody somewhere no longer trusts you, and those people will be vocal and active in letting people know that you've been dishonest.
The New York Times has made the 545 page report available (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum...) and at a passing glance, it contains oodles of data. The article links to it.
Lisa said that mean temperatures rose, then mentioned that President Trump and his cabinet have said that "the human contribution is uncertain", that report (which I have read in its entirety) does not detail any way in which the (degree of) human contribution to climate change is "certain". The document has a helpful rubric for what they would consider "Virtually Certain" or "Extremely Likely" on page 9.
I'm just not satisfied with the link between the two clauses in that paragraph. One does not imply the other.
"It is extremely likely that most of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence (high confidence)"
Page 13, line 21. That uses the terms defined in the rubric you noted.
That's in direct contrast to the cabinet quote ("uncertain").
The article is not a jab at the Trump administration, it warns the reader that such a report exists, and that it may not be approved for publication by the administration, which, you may admit could be problematic.
If that's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely available temperature datasets?
It is. Really.
There's even a nice dataset on Kaggle you can play with if you like: https://www.kaggle.com/berkeleyearth/climate-change-earth-su...
If you have data to back up your points, show the data
The data is linked, and there is plenty more data out there.
Enjoy.
That was my point, Lisa presented this fact as though it's unique to the report. In this case, it's just background data, because anyone can look at temperature trends and let out a giant DUH when asked if the mean temperatures are rising.
So you agree climate change is real and significant? Edit: Because plenty do deny that, although I agree they aren't credible. Your initial, unedited reply read just like that.
And you are just angry that the NYTimes posted that this report might not be released? Or something?
[1] http://imgur.com/a/ozK9R
Apologies for the bad first draft, maybe it should have been embargoed. ;- )
> And you are just angry that the NYTimes posted that this report might not be released? Or something?
I'm unhappy with the tone and tenor of discussions and presentations of climate issues. The part that "97%" of climate scientists agree on is not disputed by the President or his Cabinet.
The agreement is basically a) that the global mean temperature has increased dramatically, b) that atmospheric carbon dioxide increase has almost certainly had an effect, and finally c) that humans have sufficiently affected the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide to consider that these emissions account for a measurable portion of the temperature increase.
Almost everything else is very much up for debate, and when people present some additional assertions as verified fact, the curious people notice that they're being dishonest, and wonder what else they're being dishonest about.
For example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson once quite regularly told people that if the ice caps melt, the water level will be above the elbow of the statue of liberty. As far as I can tell, this does not match the models, it doesn't make sense, and it makes everything these public "science guy" types say utterly suspect.
The gripe I was hoping (and failing) to get across was that even a subtle misrepresentation or overstatement can cast doubt on your entire presentation. This, I think, is a common and grave mistake of people who present on issues which appear to divide people. When combined with smugness, any (otherwise factual) presentation can instantly convert mildly curious people into rebels.
Not sure what your problem is here. The Statue of Liberty is 90M tall, and if Antarctica and Greenland melt then estimates are that sea level will rise between 60M and 70M.
It's unknown how likely the icecap melt is, but plenty of scenarios lead to significant ice-cap break up by 2100.
Source observations are provided as originally reported and will contain many quality control and redundancy issues. Intermediate data is constructed from the source data by merging redundant records, identifying a variety of quality control problems, and creating monthly averages from daily reports when necessary.
You can choose to use breakpoint adjusted or not, the data is all there.
- I think that paragraph is a little confusing. It might be better as "It _also_ directly contradicts claims" - ie the first sentence is not tied to the second sentence, even though I could see how it might at first read that way.
Recent decades are likely the warmest in 1500 years. What data opposes this view?
Where did you get this? Some direct quotes from the article, emphasis added:
"…human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change."
"…it is possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change."
"…significant advances have been made linking human influence to individual extreme weather events since the last National Climate Assessment was produced in 2014. Still, it notes, crucial uncertainties remain."
"…“relatively strong evidence” showed that a man-made factor contributed to the extreme weather."
"Worldwide, the draft report finds it “extremely likely” that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 can be linked to human influence."
"Human activity, the report goes on to say, is a primary culprit."
Nothing here comes close to asserting that the change is entirely man-made. In fact, the article is quite careful to avoid saying that, over and over again.
This doesn't require an especially close reading to discover. Rather, you would have to go out of your way to distort what the article is saying in order to reach the conclusion that you did.
FWIW, I doubt you're engaging in this distortion on purpose. More likely it's a subconscious reaction to encountering information that you don't want to be true.
I'm always a bit surprised by this, you would think the right would be fairly conservative about environmental issues. I guess it's because big business/oil has done such a good job of buying the politicians off.
In addition, there's a smugness high horsery which doesn't appeal to the kinds of folk who get swept up in these delusions. I notice the same problem with the anti-vax crowd, where a lot of the public has basically resorted to brushing them off and engaging in ritual defamation, instead of trying to be persuasive. The poor kids who grow up with anti-vax parents who will become less and less interested in vaccine the more people tell them they're dumb.
> ...he just seems to be fairly right leaning in his views.
I'm a Liberal Conservative. That is to say, I am interested in conserving Classical Liberalism: equal opportunity, free markets, free expression, personal sovereignty. For example, I see border protection as begrudging but necessary, and only because we have attractive social programmes. If the social programmes are not attractive then we can go back to 1918 (on that issue alone) when there was effectively no border. On social matters (consensual goings on in private bedrooms, the purchase of goods and services such as drugs and sex or guns and hair styling) I don't think the government should have a say. Ideally a society should have some voluntary social core though, since it seems societies without some level of social cohesion tend to collapse into nothing rather quickly.
I don't think there is much you can do once an issue has been associated with a particular political contingent.
Also if you think there isn't a smugness and high horsery from the other side then you are mistaken.
Indeed. Things get particularly ludicrous when you hear people saying that Communism or something like it is the only way to avoid damaging the planet; there was no pollution like Communist pollution, and the Left was hostile to the first Earth Day -- it felt too much like Hitler.
I've heard the expression "watermelons" applied to a lot of this: people who are Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
i.e. if Trump's administration does not approve it, it does not exist :D
With the public draft already released, I think it would be especially surprising if the administration tried to impose non-trivial changes to the document.
Let's fund solar power and electric cars and ways to use energy more efficiently, great. However, why is it that if one thinks it's a bad idea to set up an unacountable global entity with a multi-billion dollar budget one is accused of being anti-science?
> Let's fund solar power and electric cars
You've always been free to do that. You still are. Instead of, say, waging a war of aggression for control of oil, littering the world with military bases, all the while complaining about the specter of a "world government" -- which is anything but the US desires of hegemony, right? No problem with the main superpower being a brute instead of a boon, but a huge problem with the means to defend ourselves. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=49m38s , and for now in general I'll just say "no". Not good enough. Too little, too late.
Do you mean the fund to help countries affected by climate change? that countries can voluntarily donate money to. They can put anything they want into it, even $0. Those pledges aren't even enforced. A country can pledge whatever, and change their mind later.
You've literally made up several things: a tax; hundreds of billions of dollars; an unaccountable global entity... none of it in the paris accord. I assume that's why you're being accused of being anti-science (if that was really a mystery to you).
Sounds like unlimited vacation. If anybody is trying to sell you something that's "free," you're probably getting a bad deal.
Especially if the only reason it's free for other participants is because they don't expect it to be free for you.
I didn't even say anything about global warming, only the fallibility of such an open-ended agreement structure. I wonder why I'll get down-voted hmm...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate...
"Some analysts say the final figure for worldwide compliance with the Paris pledges would be in the trillions of dollars. U.N. officials estimated that it would cost at least $100 billion per year, and that figure could rise to more than $400 billion per year by 2020 to ensure compliance"
Are we going to sign a treaty and spend $0 to comply with it? Is this all supposed to be symbolic? China and Japan and other major economies had not pledged any money toward the treaty while Obama had committed to 3 billion according to the article.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund
This is the supranational entity with a board that gets to disburse the fund. It's like the EU commission all over again.
Yes, halting the destruction of the planet's ecosystem will cost some money darlin'. And it will always be more tomorrow.
What do you think that is? That's a compliance cost.
You seem to be saying on one hand, "I object to paris accord, lets spend money on climate change ourselves" and then saying "I object to all spending on climate change"
Paris does not force anyone to spend anything or do anything. The goals are all decided by the country itself. The methods used to obtain those goals are also decided by the country itself.
And I'll say again, the Green Climate Fund is completely voluntary. If you dont like it, dont donate to it. And if you don't donate to it, then what is the objection? That other countries might donate to it?
If you're objecting to all spending on climate change, and to a voluntary fund... why not just be straight and say you don't believe in climate change? That would save everyone a lot of time.
Ideally I'd like to see some foreign aid given out to fund solar energy and wind projects in developing countries with maybe a joint partnership with a U.S operator getting to run the thing so it contributes to our economic development as well. This would actually be a pretty good plan. We could even do it as a loan paid back over a very long period of time by the electricity fees generated so it would generate a positive trade balance over time. Maybe we could build hyperloops and such in developing countries first where there is a drastically lower cost of construction in a joint venture before trying to build them here?
2nd, it is not outside of US political control. Countries do not pay all of their pledges into the fund. They make payments, basically as needed. The projects that are funded are public. If the US does not like the projects, the President can just refuse to contribute anything else to the fund. I imagine, the US could just earmark funds too (what are they going to do? refuse money? doubt it.) If that's not good enough, the US can always just contribute nothing.
Paris was signed by so many countries because it is completely symbolic. There's no enforcement of anything, and any pledge or goal is entirely up to the country.
Your plan sounds like a good idea.. put an estimate of the amount of carbon that reduces... and you've just created a goal to reduce carbon (just like in Paris!).
In Paris, what happens if your idea turns out to be ineffective? Nothing. What happens if you change your mind? Nothing. What happens if you want to do it differently? Nothing.
That's literally what a carbon goal in Paris is... a vague non-specific plan with a carbon estimate.. that you can change later.
Because Paris forces nothing on to anyone.. the question it really answers is, do politicians/reps of the countries believe in climate change?
Trump has said he believes it's a fraud, completely made up. That's why he withdrew. He has fired climate change scientists, and demanded agencies no longer research the climate, and has removed funds from those agencies for climate change. He has left the heads of scientific agencies completely vacant (no nominations). He doesn't have a plan to accomplish it some other way -- he plans to do nothing. If there was a plan, he could just make that our new paris goal.
You cannot expect developing countries to halt their carbon emissions without some king of financial help to balance out the costs incurred.
And third, we in the rest of the world have had it with America's vague promises to better themselves, which they promptly call into question by building more pipelines and start exploiting oil shales. You've exhausted your trust in this matter, if we're going to trust you, put it in writing this time. But your administration decided just doing that was too much, that's why we're mighty pissed outside of the US.
(sidenote: What exactly is the metric by which climate change is solved?)
So in this hypothetical scenario of this small group of world saving engineers, would the whole thing fail to get off the ground because some blue hair SJW would take umbrage with some aspect of the groups's identity and twitter mobs would rain down on them like hell fire?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-ca...
https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_wh...
If I understand it correctly, if it is implemented correctly, a few benefits are that it would:
- Reduce the validity of any climate change denier claims that climate change is actually a political scheme to redistribute wealth from the developed world to the rest of the developing world.
- It would also reallocate carbon tax proceeds towards making the developed world into a leader in climate change prevention solutions.
Would love to hear other people's opinions.
- simultaneously provide the mosts efficient incentives to reduce carbon emissions by shifting the cost onto exactly the people who are offending.
- and provides the funds to compensate the victims of climate change (every human), plus spare change for fundamental research into new Green tech which too unproven to be viable as a startup (would nuclear power ever have been created from scratch by the market?).
It also makes sense to tax SOx, NOx, and other air pollutants for exactly the same reason. However, the time scale and magnitude of those problems are nowhere near as dire.
Australia trialled this. I say trialled, because our government has been such a flip flop of agendas (and indeed leaders) for nearly a decade and it was only around for 3 years before being repealed. No doubt we'll see it again soon, and I look forward to rehashing the same tired debates, albeit in slightly warmer weather, when that occurs.
Then some company works out how to do the same thing in a less carbon intensive way, and it's cheaper.
That's the whole point. This isn't fixable without pain, no matter how people pretend.
Reducing waste (CO2) will boost profits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_(Japanese_term)
Industry is asking for a carbon tax. There are few holdouts, for political and personal reasons. Namely, fear and ignorance.
Whether we figure out a less carbon intensive way or just consume less, I think we can agree the benefits are the same.
I have a pet theory that we've reached a kind of "Peak Comfort". While commerce and industry yearns for more revenue, I hope that at some point the average consumer will start to say "Hey, this is probably enough comfort for me, I should focus on other things in my life." Whether that manifests in using less electricity, buying fewer fancy technology bits or sticking with their current car a few more years. Perhaps that is a naive hope, I am not sure.
Sounds about right.
Also see this paper, which is actually arguing for a slightly different system called cap-and-dividend but with the same outcome in mind: http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/worki...
A plan such as tax-and-dividend or cap-and-dividend also breaches the political divide and shows that both sides can get what they want in a single sensible system. Yes, certain lawmakers will still spitefully resist as they always do.
So... US citizens get a $3997 dividend. Or slightly less, if we want to fund research into say, Thorium reactors, smarter power grids, solar cells, power storage, wind, etc.
The people who lie about Obamacare are the exact same people who lie about global warming, and the exact same people who lie about Obama being born in Kenya and being a Muslim. Their motivations for all of those lies are exactly the same: identity politics and demonstrating political allegiance.
They're mendacious unsupportable lies uninformed and unaffected by evidence, because they very well know and cherish the fact that what they say is not true, yet they hysterically pretend to believe it, and scoff and ignore all evidence to the contrary, so no amount of appeasement or logical argument or irrefutable proof will change their minds, and they will only Gish Gallop faster and demand even more irrefutable evidence, just to waste your time. Don't fall for their trap.
The bald faced liar who decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is the exact same sociopath who said about Obama being born in Kenya: “I have people that actually have been studying it and they cannot believe what they’re finding,” Trump told host Meredith Vieira. “You have people now down there searching, I mean in Hawaii?” she asked. “Absolutely,” he replied. “And they cannot believe what they’re finding.” [1] And there is absolutely no evidence that he ever sent any investigators to Hawaii [2], just like there is absolutely no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. Evidence doesn't matter.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/birther-bonkers-don...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hawaii-inve...
When ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos asked him about the investigators later that month, Trump refused to say what they had found.
“It’s none of your business right now,” he said. “We are going to see what happens.”
CNN’s Anderson Cooper also confronted him about the investigation that month.
“Can you name even one person who your investigators have talked to?” Cooper asked.
“I don’t want to do that right now,” Trump said. “It’s not appropriate right now.”
Tana Goertz, Trump’s Iowa campaign chair and a former “Apprentice” contestant, said last year that the candidate would reveal his findings “when the time is right.”
“He’s never told you about it? You’ve never asked him about it? It was unbelievable and you weren’t curious about it?” asked MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.
“Never was curious once, because he’s not a liar. If they found something, it will come out. The time isn’t right, and guess what? Mr. Trump does what he wants and he’s not going to do it on our time,” she replied.
There is one thing I didn't understand:
"American companies exporting to countries without comparable carbon pricing would receive rebates on the carbon taxes they’ve paid on those products"
Wouldn't that subsidise and hence encourage exports to these counties? That would benefit the economy of those countries. I don't think that is desired.
But of course optimally all countries pass a similar carbon tax in the medium term so border adjustments are unnecessary.
There is one thing I didn't understand:
"American companies exporting to countries without comparable carbon pricing would receive rebates on the carbon taxes they’ve paid on those products"
Wouldn't that subsidise and hence encourage exports to these counties? That would benefit the economy of those countries. I don't think that is desired.
For example, here's a recently published paper authored by qualified individuals and the conclusion endorsed by several reviewers [0]. Bottom line was that "Global Average Surface Temperature" data was not credible and that "... it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever-–despite current claims of record setting warming."
This analysis and others leave the impression the subject of climate is not "conclusively settled" nor without legitimate controversy as to how data is interpreted and used for predicting future trends.
It's a shame that important research has become a "football" kicked around wildly for political advantage rather than being left in the realm of authentic scientific study for as long as necessary to understand the processes of Nature that we call "climate".
[0] https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data...
There is a range of credible opinions on some aspect of climate change (for example, the impact of water vapor around cities on measurement). It's probably worth concentrating on the ones which have at least been peer reviewed.
http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/
The analysis could be considered on its merit. I'd leave that to people better qualified in that field than I am.
We'd expect bias, that's entirely normal in all research. But the deep polarization of the scientific community considering climate data and findings is symptomatic of the absurd political influence on the field. The extreme level of viciousness surrounding climate research has to render all of it suspect in any honest observer's mind.
However, it must be said "peer review" is no guarantee of scientific purity, the peer review system is subject to being gamed and can exhibit severe bias against unconventional approaches or novel findings.
One version is the "file-drawer effect", operative in a range of science publishing. For example, accepting drug studies showing positive results but not those where drug treatment doesn't separate from placebo gives a falsely favorable impression of the effectiveness of the drug.
Logically we could assert that in the presence of bias toward publishing climate studies supporting warming vs. reports not showing warming, the credibility of widely quoted results becomes questionable.
It's natural, healthy and desirable for serious students of a subject to disagree. OTOH whenever political force imposes suppression of opposing points of view the process of science grinds to a halt, leaving only pseudo-scientific mythology in its place.
One word: Capital.
There's a hell of a lot of money tied up in the carbon industry, and maintaining the status-quo for that section of the capital class is predicated on not acknowledging climate change.
Some people simply reject the moral imperative to protect the environment. And science does not help in that argument. You cannot scientifically prove that someone should care about a moral issue. They have to understand at a more intuitive and emotional level first. This takes time and is messy (see every contentious political issue ever).
That was already accepted and should not be trumpetted as further "proof".
I have to admit, I don't see it. It's been an unusually calm summer where I'm at. We haven't had a summer with several days over 100F in quite a few years. If anything, it's been less hot.
But I'll surely give the report a read. It is an important topic.
Just like people won't notice the sea levels changing each year. But at some point, flooding is going to go from a rare occurrence to a regular occurrence once the sea level raises past a certain point.
To give an example - parents have a small garden, living in the valley under mountains. Till about 2-3 years back it was impossible to plant outside twice a year like near mediterranean, it was simply too cold for too long. My 90 year old grandparents never ever could do that, now they can. We're facing bugs (ie ticks) which were never there before. Winters moved from +-4 months of solid snowy winter to few weeks of snow and a lot of cold rain. And of course glaciers are retreating at ridiculous rate, ie 10m/year.
A conversation I had with an older East coast snow ski instructor was illuminating. The ski season is a few weeks shorter than it was 30 years ago. That's real economic impact.
Of course you won't notice much when comparing this year to last, especially since the weather's fairly random.
But the trends all point in one direction. Even remembering to my childhood (barely 15 years ago) paints a different picture than what we have today.
They're just iconic for nuclear power plants for some reason, to the point where some people mistake the cooling tower for a building containing a nuclear reactor. And this discourages their construction at other types of power plant, because people freak out about nuclear plants in their backyard. And obviously they aren't used where water cooling would be prohibitively expensive.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Scherer
The enormous effort put toward finding "confirmations" of the hypothesis has always been a big reason why I'm reluctant to trust the authorities in this case. I don't see the point of going through this again. Where are the falsifiable predictions? Will the Arctic Ocean be ice-free next month? We're back to point number one from Karl Popper's essay:
"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory- if we look for confirmations."
Does not knowing these answers make the activity fundamentally safe and concern about blindfolded driving to be alarmist?
It's certainly possible to see something as absurdly dangerous without having crystal ball level predictive accuracy.
Option B: This crisis is known to serious scientists, and everyone who doesn't agree is a knuckle-dragging moron.
You can only pick one of those options...
I mean seriously, find a new strategy, that one is from the 60s.
So what can _you_ do about it? Work at a new energy technology company!
Many cleantech sectors are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth, and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers (including mine). See my comment history for links to cleantech jobs.
As for dealing with skeptics, remember that you can't reason someone out of a place they didn't reason themselves into. Focus on emotion, and don't tell them what to do (instead, paint an environment where they naturally come to aligned conclusion).
Here's several ways to work with climate skeptics:
1. If you know them well and they have kids or grandkids, learn their names and talk about how life is going to get much harder for them if we don't make the energy transition. Talk about how many jobs the energy transition will make (solar already outnumbers coal jobs). Focus on the opportunity for their kids. Try to paint climate change as a us-vs-the-harsh-fucking-world (rather than what they currently think of as an us-vs-liberals-and-hippies). This perspective can make them feel like they are betraying their kids and grandkids. I've seen this work for family members and close friends.
2. If they like focusing on the economic/subsidy arguments, make it competitive and selfish. Talk about how it's going to be their loss and your gain ("if you're not going to do anything about climate change, that's more money and work for me, so thanks!"). Focus on building a situation where they get left behind. Then pile on that more Republicans have installed solar than Democrats (which is true, by the way), so it feels like their own team is already on board. Shrug off all the economic and subsidy arguments with a, "Meh, if you don't want in on it, more upside for me. You complaining just makes me richer." I've seen this work for tea party friends.
http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
Can you elaborate please?
But if I live in a rural or suburban area and have an acre+ of land and a single-family house, I have a roof and a backyard I can fill with solar panels. I probably also have a less reliable electricity grid than in the city, so getting power somewhere else is helpful. I'm also much more likely to vote Republican.
Wind turbines in my opinion make great sense for farmers and ranch owners. Turbines (which often are installed via leases to the power companies) often offer a reliable, steady source of income to this group (compared to commodity prices, which are very volatile). There's also less potential for NIMBY issues in rural locations, in my opinion.
At its core, I think anti-environmental politics is often largely a central distrust of government regulations, in my opinion. Renewable energy in itself should not really have a political tag (unless one is too deep into political tribalism to notice). Such is already a profitable prospect in many places today.
https://priceonomics.com/are-republicans-or-democrats-more-l...
And that's just the residential sector. If you add in businesses and utilities, who's executives are overwhelmingly Republican, it tips the scale way over to Republican.
Nowadays, people buy solar for economic reasons, not environmental ones.
There is a distinction between "belief in" things that are not falsifiable, such as religious beliefs; and "belief that" which is knowable and evidence based. And denialists conflate these things, and become emotionally attached to belief in rejection of facts. So they spend a lot of brain cycles on myriad conspiracy theories to deny the conventional wisdom. What they claim to believe in as an alternative is more of a "by default" position rather than a sincere belief. e.g. if you ask flat earthers if they really think a person falls off the disk if they walk to the edge of the earth, or if there really is a giant wall of ice that mankind has never figured out how to climb, if we've never really been able to find out what's on the other side of the flat earth, they totally get stuck. They spend way way more time trying to disprove the convention, than the prove their position. It's a negative position, not one of advocacy.
It is denialism.
http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-de...