81–90 of 276 posts
If you drag all of the bars to their ideal position (lowest on the bad things, highest on the good things) the temperature still goes up by more than a degree.
It helps to show that we're screwed. But the degree to how screwed we are can vary a bit.
This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…
> I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding.
FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it?
> "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have more to lose.
Whether big oil/coal have more to lose seems orthogonal to the question of whether bias is involved in climate science. If so, this sort of approach to debate seems counter-productive to me.
> It's very difficult to fight ignorance, especially when they don't believe facts.
I will confess, referring to climate models that are literally estimated projections of future temperatures as "facts", very much rubs me the wrong way. It doesn't put me in a very cooperative mood. To me, whether this reaction is "illogical" or not seems irrelevant, whereas the reaction itself seems extremely relevant, and completely overlooked in the analysis of the situation. I wonder, am I the only one that has this sort of reaction? Have we seen similar behavior in similar scenarios?
> This is the main issue with climate change deniers, not the inability to visualize the data.
I proclaim that you are speculating about what "the main issue" is with climate change deniers. You think you know (your perception of this appears clear as day), and you may even be right (by chance), but you do not know. I have a feeling that guessing wrong on such things might be far more impactful than we realize.
This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like you're saying that 50 years ago there was a single climate model, upon which significant consensus among scientists had been reached, that predicted a 1C temperature rise. I've read quite a few articles and discussions on this topic but have never heard this before. Am I misunderstanding you? If not, do you have a link that discusses this?
Perhaps the Sawyer paper from 1973? https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m...
This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…
The problem is propaganda. Climate change is the victim. Even staples of modern life, like vaccines, can be sullied by the private interests of the ultra wealthy/politically affluent.
It’s very very easy to live your daily life and not see any real world consequences outside of some sometimes shrill activists who aren’t the most persuasive people to the average lowest common denominator people.
For one thing these sorts of people won’t be hanging out on an MIT website called EN-ROADS.
Indifference is the biggest enemy, not some big orchestrated conspiracy (although there is some of that too, but that doesn’t explain why even most liberals aren’t doing anything about it).
What value of Climate Sensitivity is assumed in the model? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity Edit: Found it in sec. 9.2 in the manual. It's 3. https://www.climateinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...
First from top menu simulation -> assumptions. Then from below > "Climate system sensitivities" you can alter Climate sensitivity, Ocean mixing index, CO2 fertilization index, Sea level rise from ice sheet melting and Carbon cycle land and ocean uptake
About 5 or 6 years ago towards the end of my undergrad my professor picked up on this and we held some mock UN Climate assemblies using this tool.[1] The class divided up into first world, developing, and poorer nations and each had to bring their needs to the table while trying to compromise. I got to actually lead a session at MIT for some incoming freshman which was fun. The dashboard is super handy to drive home…
Modeling the debate on the dimension of national wealth seems like a good idea. I'm curious, was there any discussion about potential value in modeling on other dimensions, such as political affiliation?
This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…
In Seattle, almost everybody agrees with the scientific consensus on global warming. But if you ask them how to fix it, they'll tell you to go after the oil companies. Or corporations in general. Or China. Or India. But a carbon tax? One that raises my gas bill? No way! Everybody else is the problem, never me.
This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…
It is clearly made up data, as for example they predict the outcome of policies like carbon costs. Afaik even economists don't agree on the results of such policies. They are just making an assumption and the whole app is merely advertising for their preferred type of policy.
This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…
The problem is propaganda. Climate change is the victim. Even staples of modern life, like vaccines, can be sullied by the private interests of the ultra wealthy/politically affluent.