Extreme weather

[jeremyrh]

I think the general intelligence of the readers of this forum is greater than you imply with that post.

Maybe

Even that politically biased, great authority on climate, the IPCC,

Aah - maybe not.

[Ray]

Maybe

Aah - maybe not.

Which part is 'maybe not'? That the IPCC is a great authority on climate change, or that they are politically biased (to some extent), or both? 

[jeremyrh]

Which part is 'maybe not'? That the IPCC is a great authority on climate change, or that they are politically biased (to some extent), or both? 

The "maybe not" referred to the assumption that members of the forum are intelligent.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The "maybe not" referred to the assumption that members of the forum are intelligent.

Yes, that was obvious to most members of the forum, but apparently not all ... 

[Alan Klein]

Many intelligent people are very gullible.  They show no discernment. 

[jeremyrh]

Many intelligent people are very gullible.  They show no discernment.

And some ignorant people try to conceal their ignorance with unfounded scepticism.

[Alan Klein]

And some ignorant people try to conceal their ignorance with unfounded scepticism.

“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
― George Carlin

[Ray]

The "maybe not" referred to the assumption that members of the forum are intelligent.

If that is so, then why not explain why the quoted comment preceding the 'maybe not' statement suggests a lack of intelligence, so we can all benefit from your superior insights? 

Oh! I get it! This is 'climate change', and the last thing we want to do is undermine the 'alarmism' by presenting facts and rational explanations. 

[TechTalk]

Oh! I get it! This is 'climate change', and the last thing we want to do is undermine the 'alarmism' by presenting facts and rational explanations. 

Facts and rational explanations backed by the continual testing and retesting of theory based on evidence produced by the collection of data from measurement, experiment, and observation is what you get from science and its methods. This applies to all sciences be they climate, medicine, chemistry, physics, biology, etc.

What you don't get from scientific findings is certainty. Science is the exploration of the uncertain and it embraces uncertainty. There is little point in conducting experiments, creating models, or testing theories for that of which you're certain. Scientific theory is the best currently available explanation of something observed in nature that is repeatedly tested and verified by the scientific method using observation, measurement, and evaluation and which builds on accumulated knowledge over time. Scientists provide carefully worded degrees of confidence in their findings not certainty.

Alarmism is what you get from non-experts when scientific consensus and best available evidence does not align with what they wish to believe; as they find evidence contrary to their system of belief, or for some the potential effects on their business interests, quite alarming. When this occurs, the modern game-plan is to plant seeds of doubt based on the inherent nature of scientific uncertainty. Just ask the tobacco industry as they implemented and successfully used this strategy for decades to stave off regulation and keep their customers happily lighting up long after science had shown the connections between smoking and serious diseases.

From the 1954 statement of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee  https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/1954

It is an obligation of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee at this time to remind the public of these essential points:

1. There is no conclusive scientific proof of a link between smoking and cancer.

2. Medical research points to many possible causes of cancer… .

4. In their recent preliminary report to the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society and its statistical research staff placed careful qualifications and limitations on their findings related to this subject. These qualifying statements should not be overlooked.

*A more detailed analysis of how this type of plan operates to undermine scientific research can be found at NIH here... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics   or from WHO here...  https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf

Placing careful qualifications and limitations on findings is what real science and scientists do. That's how science works. You provide the best available explanation and when new or better data comes along you make revisions and updates.

On the other hand, ideologues and those with vested financial interests, that lack sufficient scientific consensus and evidence to support what they would like to believe, will simply point to lack of conclusive proof and proclaim the science as alarmist, controversial, or unconvincing. This type of anti-science/anti-expert propaganda has helped to produce the current crop of folks opposed to vaccinations, skeptical of climate science, anti-mask protesters, and a whole host of other beliefs from those distrustful of science, experts, and things that are foreign to them or too complex for their understanding.

[Alan Klein]

Scientists aren't economists.  The problem with climate change science and the new problem with coronavirus, is that there are more than one side of the issues.  While scientists can recommend what has to be done to lessen the damage physically and medically, they're not addressing the whole issue.  There are huge economic problems created.  These have to be addressed as well.  For example, if you spend trillions as being recommended in the US now by presidential candidates, you have that much less money to spend on other issues: infrastructure, cancer research, homeless, the poor, etc.  In fact, the more you spend on climate change, the higher fossil prices will go making it even harder for the poor to heat and cool their homes.  Similar issue apply to Covid relief, but that's for a different thread. Unfortunately, little attention is being made on the economic costs and tradeoffs of these issues.

[faberryman]

Scientists aren't economists.  The problem with climate change science and the new problem with coronavirus, is that there are more than one side of the issues.  While scientists can recommend what has to be done to lessen the damage physically and medically, they're not addressing the whole issue.  There are huge economic problems created.  These have to be addressed as well.  For example, if you spend trillions as being recommended in the US now by presidential candidates, you have that much less money to spend on other issues: infrastructure, cancer research, homeless, the poor, etc.  In fact, the more you spend on climate change, the higher fossil prices will go making it even harder for the poor to heat and cool their homes.  Similar issue apply to Covid relief, but that's for a different thread. Unfortunately, little attention is being made on the economic costs and tradeoffs of these issues.

I think I have heard this somewhere before.

[jeremyrh]

I think I have heard this somewhere before.

Only once? Or many times ... ?

[jeremyrh]

While scientists can recommend what has to be done to lessen the damage physically and medically, they're not addressing the whole issue.  There are huge economic problems created. 

Yes there are, but economic problems are a luxury item if you're dead.  Meanwhile nothing gets done because halfwits try to play down the real extent of the global warming issue.

Coronavirus is a perfect metaphor but one you can see play out on a scale of days - the US does nothing while politicians and their stooges yap on about masks and bleach, meanwhile people are dying in their tens of thousands. Wake up!!

[Alan Klein]

Yes there are, but economic problems are a luxury item if you're dead.  Meanwhile nothing gets done because halfwits try to play down the real extent of the global warming issue.

Coronavirus is a perfect metaphor but one you can see play out on a scale of days - the US does nothing while politicians and their stooges yap on about masks and bleach, meanwhile people are dying in their tens of thousands. Wake up!!

How do you earn a living?

[jeremyrh]

How do you earn a living?

What's the Latin name for parsley?

[faberryman]

What's the Latin name for parsley?

The Latin word for parsley is apium, so you must be a bee keeper.

[Peter McLennan]

  For example, if you spend trillions as being recommended in the US now by presidential candidates, you have that much less money to spend on other issues: infrastructure, cancer research, homeless, the poor, etc.

Alan, that is a false concept.  It may be true for a household budget, but it's not true for governments or their accounting systems.  Your evaluation assumes constant revenue.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, that is a false concept.  It may be true for a household budget, but it's not true for governments or their accounting systems.  Your evaluation assumes constant revenue.

Than let's print even trillions more and make everyone rich.   That doesn't work.  Printing devalues currency.  That means both people and governments have less to spend as prices eventually go up.  Additional taxes are required putting a burden on the economy.  Jobs are lost.  Earnings and taxes go down.  There's no free lunxh.

[faberryman]

Meanwhile, back on topic, it is really hot here. The heat index is over 100. I'm not planning to go out for the rest of the day. I can't remember if that is because of the heat or the cornonavirus. Doesn't matter really. And now they say that polar bears will go extinct. That is not very cheerful news.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/polar-bears-could-disappear-2100-due-melting-ice-climate-change-n1234439

[Robert Roaldi]

Than let's print even trillions more and make everyone rich.   That doesn't work.  Printing devalues currency.  That means both people and governments have less to spend as prices eventually go up.  Additional taxes are required putting a burden on the economy.  Jobs are lost.  Earnings and taxes go down.  There's no free lunxh.

What he was trying to tell you, I think, was that it is not a zero-sum game. It never has been. That is at the heart of Milton Friedman's (and many others') views. Don't you believe Milton?

The environmental conversation, of which climate change is a part, will get nowhere unless we eliminate the absurd and false "environment vs economy" pseudo-debate. Without a sustainable environment there will be NO ECONOMY. The environment is the economy. Approaching this from the viewpoint that the two are in opposition is worse than pointless.

It is not true that environmental regulations harm the economy. That is stupid. Is there any point making cheaper running shoes if part of your population dies from the toxins that are used to make them gets into the water supply? The environmental industry is itself part of the "economy". The people working in those industries, the products they make, that all is part of GDP.

We have had environmental regulations of one sort or another since the 1960s or so. Has the economy collapsed in that time? Has the world ended? I may be wrong but things have been going fairly well the world over during that time.

Don't you like breathing clean air. Don't you think that clean water is important for the "economy".