Climate change policy

[Jacob]

There is a consensus among scientists that humans are responsible for climate change:

Quoted in https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/

American Association for the Advancement of Science​

"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3

American Chemical Society​

"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4

American Geophysical Union​

"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5

American Medical Association​

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6

American Meteorological Society​

"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7

American Physical Society​

"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8

The Geological Society of America​

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

"New Scientist" is a good for keeping up to speed. Not academic but a news-sheet for the general reader. Weekly.
It could help our Tony and others who need to catch up.
Not cheap, luckily I have a family member with a sub, who passes it on to me. It's always a lot of interesting reading for just a week!
https://www.newscientist.com/

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

That's the whole point - we know that we don't know, and therefore we exercise judgement as to who is most likely right. The odd thing is those who think the little they know gives them sufficient information to challenge the vast scientific consensus. Again, we saw this repeatedly with covid. It's just silly.

Written far too politely in my view - it isn't just silly - it's absurd and preposterous.

It's also self-contradictory:

"But the vast majority of experts are not to be trusted - so I'm placing my trust in *this specific* expert".

Adding this factor to the equation, and doing the sums, then, I calculate that the holistic position that some people adopt is therefore (absurd and preposterous)squared.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Perhaps they choose certain expert's opinions because they themselves are better educated on the natter than the rank and file who pretend they know more about it than they do!

Perhaps some organisations are "extremely selective" of whom to use as their expert as a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.

(Some organisations are perhaps the ones with an agenda or motive to do this - ie, they have a profit stream at risk, or are being paid by those with a profit stream to soap-box their specific chosen viewpoint.)

I still struggle, however, to understand those who adopt the (preposterous and absurd)squared viewpoints whilst representing themselves as an individual?

 

[ey_tony]

Perhaps some organisations are "extremely selective" of whom to use as their expert as a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.

(Some organisations are perhaps the ones with an agenda or motive to do this - ie, they have a profit stream at risk, or are being paid by those with a profit stream to soap-box their specific chosen viewpoint.)

I still struggle, however, to understand those who adopt the (preposterous and absurd)squared viewpoints whilst representing themselves as an individual?

If you actually understood the subject then you might not struggle.
I find it equally difficult to communicate with people who clearly don't have a clue but then proceed to denigrate anyone who who dares to proffer a different opinion to theirs.

 

[Blackswanwood]

If you actually understood the subject then you might not struggle.
I find it equally difficult to communicate with people who clearly don't have a clue but then proceed to denigrate anyone who who dares to proffer a different opinion to theirs.

Instead of just picking an argument Tony why not explain what it is that you feel people are missing or getting wrong? Or are you just enjoying the “sport” of just having an argument?

 

[ey_tony]

Instead of just picking an argument Tony why not explain what it is that you feel people are missing or getting wrong? Or are you just enjoying the “sport” of just having an argument?

I'm picking no argument, on the contrary I'm just stating what I know to be correct. It's others who clearly don't know what on earth they are talking about who are lambasting me for not following their views on GW religion.
It's clear that they don't understand what they are talking about and merely regurgitating what they've been told or read but have never thought to question or challenge what they have been told. hence their intolerance of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their view of the world.

 

[DrPhill]

I'm picking no argument, on the contrary I'm just stating what I know to be correct. It's others who clearly don't know what on earth they are talking about who are lambasting me for not following their views on GW religion.
It's clear that they don't understand what they are talking about and merely regurgitating what they've been told or read but have never thought to question or challenge what they have been told. hence their intolerance of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their view of the world.

But what is it that you know, and we don't? What are your facts? And how did you come by them? Or if you do not have any facts to give us, then explain why we should believe your opinions over the overwhelming number of people that have different opinions.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I'm picking no argument, on the contrary I'm just stating what I know to be correct. It's others who clearly don't know what on earth they are talking about who are lambasting me for not following their views on GW religion.
It's clear that they don't understand what they are talking about and merely regurgitating what they've been told or read but have never thought to question or challenge what they have been told. hence their intolerance of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their view of the world.

Having reread your posts what you think is correct is that others on here are wrong and we could end up doing things we don’t need to do which damages the economy. (And you’ve given us a teaser about foot & mouth culling)

It’s not really the most compelling argument is it?

 

[ey_tony]

Why on earth is there so much hysteria on this forum just because I don't subscribe to the global warming god theory?

I'm not denying that there is climate change nor that it isn't in some ways being affected quite possibly by anthropogenic sources and I do have enough knowledge to know that not all the data they throw out is in any way meaningful. Much of the data is vague to say the least and not real science.
Anyway I'll leave it to you guys to discuss the subject among yourselves it as it's pointless trying to even make any headway with indoctrinated minds.

 

[Chris152]

I think it's fascination, tbh. The people I know, the people I read and listen to, don't go down the strange rabbit holes that a few on here and many elsewhere do in the 'post-truth', everyone's-an-expert cyber age. So it's fascinating to engage with someone who falls into that category, even if it's just in a passing way.

 

[ey_tony]

Having reread your posts what you think is correct is that others on here are wrong and we could end up doing things we don’t need to do which damages the economy. (And you’ve given us a teaser about foot & mouth culling)

It’s not really the most compelling argument is it?

We have recently been discussing the inclusion of Bovaer into animal feeds to reduce methane levels.
The mention of F&M wasn't a teaser, do some internet research for yourself to see how the culling of huge numbers of livestock actually affected the methane levels and then decide for yourself if the food additive will work and give the results as they claim it will.

As for us ending up doing things which will harm our future economy, that is a given if we follow the course and rate at which we are trying to achieve this mystical Net Zero right now.
I'll wager now that when the people who matter finally realise just how it's going to affect our ongoing living standards and economy, there will be a jarring re-think.

 

[Jacob]

I've got a relevant degree which gives me the background to understand the subject matter plus I've followed the subject for over 30 years so I'd hardly call that a little knowledge.

Not done much revision in the meantime then!

What is your background on the subject such that you can take sides?
In 1912, Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of tectonic plate movement but the consensus of the majority of his peers claimed he was completely mad and ridiculed the idea.

Not true.
Everybody recognised the basics (coastal maps and mysterious geological matches across oceans) but nobody, including Wegener, could work out a mechanism to account for the apparent movement. Various hypotheses were advanced.
He was never dismissed as "completely mad".

..it wasn't until the 1960s that his theory was validated..

True - it followed from later developments in ocean floor surveying ("Bathymetry") and in particular magnetic evidence relating to polar drift / reversals etc.

.the vast majority of his peers disagreed and they were proved wrong so don't assume that because they use the word consensus that it's true!

There was lively debate, quite rightly, pending the arrival of further convincing evidence, which arrived late 1950s to 60s.
As it happens I was at school in the 60s doing A level science subjects and the plate tectonic topic was new and exciting and I remember it well. More exciting than later moon landings - mere engineering feats!
We had subs to "New Scientist", "Scientific American" and later I took "The Ecologist". Have a first edition and "A Blueprint for Survival" tucked away somewhere.
This is how science often develops, little steps over many years, maybe leading to "paradigm shifts" etc.
The science of climate change arguably began in 1824 discovered by Joseph Fourier.
The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
It's old news, studied continuously for 200 years. The only radical departure has been the realisation that rather than individual localised effects around the globe (desertification, changes in Gulf stream, etc), the consequences are likely to be global, massive and probably unstoppable.
Massive and thorough research in recent years has led to this conclusion and the scientific jury is back!
It's amazing that small bands of eccentrics and lunatics, mostly utterly ignorant but some even claiming scientific knowledge, are bothering to contest the accumulated evidence of 200 years of research, and the evidence before their eyes .
Less amazing that they are backed up by cynical vested interests, mainly the fossil fuel lobby.

 

[DrPhill]

Less amazing that they are backed up by cynical vested interests, mainly the fossil fuel lobby.

Some of whom performed some very useful research, and made very good predictions - [EDIT: almost] half a century ago - of the current course of climate change:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

 

[Blackswanwood]

We have recently been discussing the inclusion of Bovaer into animal feeds to reduce methane levels.
The mention of F&M wasn't a teaser, do some internet research for yourself to see how the culling of huge numbers of livestock actually affected the methane levels and then decide for yourself if the food additive will work and give the results as they claim it will.

As for us ending up doing things which will harm our future economy, that is a given if we follow the course and rate at which we are trying to achieve this mystical Net Zero right now.
I'll wager now that when the people who matter finally realise just how it's going to affect our ongoing living standards and economy, there will be a jarring re-think.

Post 424 sums it up for me. It’s an opportunity not a threat however I also respect that opinions may differ.

 

[Jacob]

Not done much revision in the meantime then!

Not true.
Everybody recognised the basics (coastal maps and mysterious geological matches across oceans) but nobody, including Wegener, could work out a mechanism to account for the apparent movement. Various hypotheses were advanced.
He was never dismissed as "completely mad".

True - it followed from later developments in ocean floor surveying ("Bathymetry") and in particular magnetic evidence relating to polar drift / reversals etc.

There was lively debate, quite rightly, pending the arrival of further convincing evidence, which arrived late 1950s to 60s.
As it happens I was at school in the 60s doing A level science subjects and the plate tectonic topic was new and exciting and I remember it well. More exciting than later moon landings - mere engineering feats!
We had subs to "New Scientist", "Scientific American" and later I took "The Ecologist". Have a first edition and "A Blueprint for Survival" tucked away somewhere.
This is how science often develops, little steps over many years, maybe leading to "paradigm shifts" etc.
The science of climate change arguably began in 1824 discovered by Joseph Fourier.
The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
It's old news, studied continuously for 200 years. The only radical departure has been the realisation that rather than individual localised effects around the globe (desertification, changes in Gulf stream, etc), the consequences are likely to be global, massive and probably unstoppable.
Massive and thorough research in recent years has led to this conclusion and the scientific jury is back!
It's amazing that small bands of eccentrics and lunatics, mostly utterly ignorant but some even claiming scientific knowledge, are bothering to contest the accumulated evidence of 200 years of research, and the evidence before their eyes .
Less amazing that they are backed up by cynical vested interests, mainly the fossil fuel lobby.

Just an afterthought. Interesting that the science of plate tectonics and climate change evolved in opposite directions.
Plate tectonics from evidence to hypothesis to cause.
CC from cause to hypothesis to evidence - still coming!
Does that signify anything at all? Probably not.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

If you actually understood the subject then you might not struggle.
I find it equally difficult to communicate with people who clearly don't have a clue but then proceed to denigrate anyone who who dares to proffer a different opinion to theirs.

Ahem. Even though I understand the topic to a degree (I instruct Meteorology, amongst other topics, to ab-initio trainees, and have a very strong interest in climatology...) I'm not so conceited to be using MY knowledge to debunk your frankly embarrassing tropes - I'm placing my faith in the circa 97% of peer-reviewed scientists that they've come to the correct conclusions in that peer reviewed space, not the bunkum minority (minority with an agenda). This isn't really as "open for interpretation" as you are proposing - the body of evidence is far too established, too strong and too agreed upon for that to be the case. Unless you're challenging NASA on their conclusion that circa 97% of climate scientists agree to the same conclusions.


You see, this is not about "your opinion" and others "proffering different opinions" or "why can't you respect my opinion differs for 'good reason'." We're talking about an extremely well researched branch of earth science and the overwhelming agreement amongst that peer reviewed research to the same conclusions - your "opinion" is of little value in this space and the proffering of others "opinion" is not what is happening here - others are pointing to the body of evidence and the overwhelming agreement amongst that overwhelmingly credible and advanced research and telling you directly to your face that there is no such thing as "good reason" for a layman to credibly entertain a differing "opinion" to that body of coherent research conclusions. We're telling you directly to your face that your notion of your opinion being credible is (absurd and preposterous)squared.

YOU are not a J Harlen Bretz, and neither is this Judith Curry character, and nor is this a J Harlen Bretz stylee situation.

So, yeah, I struggle to understand the mindset that believes they know better than circa 97% of peer reviewed climate scientists.

I also struggle to contain my disbelief during a discussion when someone constantly floats the same old tired debunked rhetoric that is found on channels such as GB News and Talk TV and Daily Mail (whom we know are often funded by lobby groups with connections to fossil fuel) and from known ultra-sceptic groups, organisations and individuals who's material also extends to other conspiracy and tin-hattery such as flat earth and deep state nonsense.

For instance - the known fact that electricity from renewables is currently cheaper than fossil fuel electricity, (and also not subject to volatility on geopolitical events) - and yet the factually incorrect nonsense is still being spread about (and you are guilty of this yourself ) that "net zero will cost more" or "will harm the economy" or "harm those least well off the most". These are categorically untrue.

But you carry on, buddy, with your "opinion" differing from mine - carry on spreading that categorically false narrative. Take pride in the fact that you are assisting the exact opposite of what you rally against.

 

[Jacob]

If you actually understood the subject then you might not struggle.
I find it equally difficult to communicate with people who clearly don't have a clue but then proceed to denigrate anyone who who dares to proffer a different opinion to theirs.

I know what you mean - you don't have a clue Tony! That much is absolutely clear!

 

[DrPhill]

I'm not denying that there is climate change nor that it isn't in some ways being affected quite possibly by anthropogenic sources

I think that is about as much admission of the facts as we are going to get. I think Tony has got in so deep his pride won't let him back down. Maybe we should call it a day here?

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I know what you mean - you don't have a clue Tony! That much is absolutely clear!

Possibly a touch of Dunning Kruger going on instead of being utterly clueless?

 

[woodieallen]

I find this kind of ad-hominem attack offensive.

I would hope that we could be more adult in our debates

Surely that should be ad-feminem ?