I notice that a lot of past predictions took the form "if we don't hit metric X by time T1, then easily-observable bad thing Y will happen by time T2". These were concrete, falsifiable (assuming we don't actually hit the metric in question, which in practice we never did), and basically left no room for interpretation. These days, the predictions we get seem way more wishy-washy and completely unfalsifiable.
For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
101–110 of 120 posts
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> yo drive down co2. fact is: we are not gonna reach the targets in a reasonable timeframe. The solution to climate change is very cheap and simple. It is a carbon tax. It is also not difficult to implement at all and will cause only modest inflation. However, the oil industry is a huge influence on governments all over the world and will throw everything at preventing this from happening. Imagine for a moment that a…
Wondering what your approach is to convince Nigerians and Indians on including a carbon tax and making their struggle into the middle class even more expensive :)
Ooh gotcha! I am stumped.
Indians already pay some of the highest fuel sales tax. And United states has some of the cheapest gasoline rates.
https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/diu/story/nearly-two-third-of-...
If you are concerned about equity, then high carbon footprint countries can transfer the carbon tax revenue to low carbon footprint countries.
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
> yo drive down co2. fact is: we are not gonna reach the targets in a reasonable timeframe. The solution to climate change is very cheap and simple. It is a carbon tax. It is also not difficult to implement at all and will cause only modest inflation. However, the oil industry is a huge influence on governments all over the world and will throw everything at preventing this from happening. Imagine for a moment that a…
Carbon tax, the ultimate inflation booster.
As if global crop failure will not be a recipe for inflation
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#104For me, the XKCD chart "Earth Temperature Timeline"[0] really put things into perspective:
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So how do you know that reports back then were lying about the existence of a consensus, but today's reports aren't? Doch[0]. Todays newspaper reports are also generally disconnected from reality. To illustrate with a tech news story as this is a tech news site, I saw one news story about the Raspberry Pi which had more errors than sentences, including the price, the OS, the RAM, the processor, the country of manuf…
"while this seems to be the case for you, I'd like you to ask yourself if that's the right question to be asking." I don't actually care about the social dynamics of scientists, because since the start of COVID I've developed a strong cynicism about all academic reliability, and so really wish that No True Scientist type arguments would go away. They're boring and even if an academic consensus did exist (it doesn't)…
> it doesn't
It does.
> Nobody seems to care about ECS
You only even know the term ECS because scientists are in fact talking about it.
> the Guardian
Are a newspaper and therefore misrepresent everything (if not literally then at least a lot of stuff). Did you know the Guardian's nickname is "Grauniad" because of its early reputation for frequent typographical errors, including misspelling its own name as "The Gaurdian"?
> the only thing that can shift their view is by showing that the experts actually aren't expert at all.
I doubt it, you're still reacting like the stuff the newspapers are publishing is representative of the domains of discussion despite me already referencing the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. (In fairness, it got that name precisely because of how rapidly people, or at least how fast Michael Crichton, forgot how bad newspapers are at reality).
> we'd expect to see some sort of post mortem where they collectively study why so many bold predictions were made that they later recanted. No such reflective learning process has ever happened.
Indeed. But, Gell-Mann amnesia effect. People keep trusting newspapers. It's the newspapers who keep getting stuff wrong, and it isn't merely science where they get things badly wrong in their reporting. Look at what the newspapers say about your area of expertise.
You do have an area of expertise, I assume?
Look at what any of those newspapers say about your area of expertise. Are the newspapers wrong? Are they "wet pavements cause rain" level wrong? It happens.
> Then when it's pointed out that this isn't true using archival evidence
There are archives of scientific publications, not just newspapers. This backs up what the scientists are saying and not what the newspapers are saying and have previously said (one case I saw "live" about a decade ago, climate scientists said one thing, then a UK tabloid said basically the opposite but claimed to be quoting them).
> the claim changes to be that journalists were - inexplicably, as a group - engaged in a vast conspiracy to s/warming/cooling/g in everything scientists said.
More that they make stuff up and are works of fiction that are at most loosely inspired by reality.
> This claim is implausible, it's also literally a conspiracy theory, except one with no motive
Newspapers are paid in proportion to the drama not the factuality.
> and no proof that it's real.
Except for all the published archives of all the scientific journals reproduced in most university libraries.
> "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin ... Scientists from multiple countries .... overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife"?
Literally none of what you're quoting there says it's impossible for a virus to leak from a lab. It says the evidence in this case is that it almost certainly didn't, not that it couldn't. Those are importantly different things, especially given what else the conspiracy theories at the time were trying to claim.
> A consensus of people and institutions like that is worthless.
You must consider that to have been a good argument, but I don't see why.
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do you think that embracing it is not possible? We need to learn to stop worrying and to love climate change? Because it will destruct significant portions of inhabited land? Because we now can have a marina where once were densely inhabited cities? Because those surviving the famines and wars will have a low BMI? Your comment is the most stupid shilling I read in a while. How about embracing a truck on the hig…
I'm not saying it will be nice. I'm just reminding that current science states that global warming is here to stay . > Because we now can have a marina where once were densely inhabited cities? I don't agree with your "can". We will have a marina where today are densely inhabited cities. No shouting "stop fossil fuels", no actual stopping fossil fuels will prevent huge cities to disappear. We can (and must) avoid the…
> We can (and must) avoid the uber-super catastrophe,
Alright, so let's hear your proposal for doing so that doesn't involve stopping the use of fossil fuels?
And yes, huge amounts of adaptation will be necessary no matter what else we do, nobody's arguing otherwise.
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In balance, the net thermal impact of all global-scale pollution (including thermal pollution) is likely to be one of warming, perhaps increasingly so after 2000 A.D So Mitchell was right all along! What is this so called "contradiction" that you are talking about?
The contradiction appears there, in the abstract of his paper. He realized that greenhouse gas physics should trap warmth and CO2 was going up, but accepted that the world had actually been cooling for decades. So how could he explain this contradiction? He presented a hypothesis that maybe it was a volcano-related natural phenomenon, in which cooling caused by volcano exhaust was offsetting the warming effects of CO…
> According to modern climatologists the cooling trend Mitchell was trying to explain with volcanos never existed at all ... and anyone who says otherwise is a malicious liar
Who are the modern climatologists that are saying that the data recorded and reported by Mitchell does not exist? Are you saying that the NASA data graph is false for 1940-1975? I couldn't find any graph in Mitchell's paper.
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems to be the mainstream opinion as well, I don't agree with you. There are many people who do care about future generations. And maybe there are other people that share my opinion: 1) future generations deserve our attention and our best efforts, but only the efforts that can have an actual impact are worth to be taken. Going back to Stone Age for the others to keep enjoying modern comfort and spoiling my e…
> > This seems to be the mainstream opinion as well, > I don't agree with you. Unfortunately I'd have to agree with the original author here. People gest and make empty vacuous statements on social media _a lot_. People are also unwilling to change or take on a small amount of responsibility. These 2 things are in direct conflict. Again my strongest condemnation of this is people only now care about power and fuel ef…
Climate change can not be solved by individual action. It's a ridiculous idea to propose this in the first place. Governments are supposed to solve Tragedy of the Commons through regulation. The Common who takes it on himself will lose everything to gain nothing.
government intervention such ad carbon tax and EV subsidies and actions like the green new deal are what is needed.
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#109Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on.. lol. References please.
The post you're responding to literally refers to a book.
Reviews of that book don't seem to mention any original source revelations about funding the western political movements. As it's not openly accessible this would need a citation from the book for credibility I think.