Making it better

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:09 am

I didn't say anything about the sun rising. You see my other posts right? Like the ones about people dying of starvation in Africa. I suppose that's as mundane as the weather to you.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12939
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:18 am

You have not shown me a prediction 10 years ahead of million death catastrophe.

I guess I need to add the proviso that it must be novel. Certain places have megadeaths from starvation frequently. That would not meet my conditions. Just as I can predict that the sun will appear to rise in the east, I can also predict that the Philippines will have a devastating hurricane some time in the next ten years. Because they always have. So give me a prediction that is not obvious.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:30 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:18 am
You have not shown me a prediction 10 years ahead of million death catastrophe.

I guess I need to add the proviso that it must be novel. Certain places have megadeaths from starvation frequently. That would not meet my conditions. Just as I can predict that the sun will appear to rise in the east, I can also predict that the Philippines will have a devastating hurricane some time in the next ten years. Because they always have. So give me a prediction that is not obvious.
Okay, you just proved that you don't care about half of the people in the world. I kinda knew that, but I was hoping you would just say it. And why move the goalposts to the prediction being obvious. We obviously don't agree on what "obvious" means. By asking for that, you've admitted that I did give a prediction, it proved true, but you don't care about children dying in Africa. To you that's not a catastrophe, it's just one of those "certain places". I don't even know what you mean by that. Are you saying people were starving by the millions in those countries since the beginning of recorded time? What are you saying? Are you even a real person? Has the compassionate part of your brain been removed?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Making it better

Post by Austin Harper » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:42 pm

Lance, I agree with you on most points here but spelling Lausten's name wrong over and over again is driving me crazy.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Fri Mar 08, 2019 3:03 pm

Austin Harper wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:42 pm
Lance, I agree with you on most points here but spelling Lausten's name wrong over and over again is driving me crazy.
I don't mention it because it's an obvious ploy.

Here's a nice website on famines. Their causes, when and where they have occurred, and most important to this conversation, how we can predict them. It's the same as discussing AGW, except AGW is global. The causes, like industrialization, don't just effect the people who can see the factories, or who work there, or who own it. It sends things up into the atmosphere and the effects occur globally. It's in the name.

A big difference is, we can react to famines with aid, sending food in the short term, technology assistance in the slightly longer term, and encouraging education of women and better governance in the long, long term. Those are the kinds of solutions you see happening, the kind of things doomsayers say won't happen. Although I'd argue they say they AREN'T happening, then they happen because awareness is raised, but that's picking nits. The importance difference is, those who should be sending the aid and the technology are the cause of AGW and they don't admit it. They have no intention of changing out of altruistic motivations nor do they even care about risk assessment. They are the ones who need to be educated and need to change how they interact with governments. They are the foxes in the hen house.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:49 pm

I always thought it was "Lost Son". helps to pay attention?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10866
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:16 pm

Lausten wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 3:03 pm
Here's a nice website on famines. Their causes, when and where they have occurred, and most important to this conversation, how we can predict them. It's the same as discussing AGW, except AGW is global. The causes, like industrialization, don't just effect the people who can see the factories, or who work there, or who own it. It sends things up into the atmosphere and the effects occur globally. It's in the name.
I agree with the article that most famines nowadays are man-made, due to corruption and manipulation. Food aid is fairly immediate and abundant due to large food surpluses around the world. Food shortages are largely a myth, often created by financial interests who often seek to corner the market on supply. The practice of "supply management" is practiced world-wide and consists of stockpiling surplus food to maintain higher prices through false-scarcity. This surplus is often donated to aid agencies or simply destroyed.

It is a very different problem from AGW, although both are frustrated by the element of human self-interest and corruption. The speed of change towards serving the public good is proportional to the degree that governments are controlled by the ratio of democracy vs. corporatocracy. The problem is political, but the remedy is not simply more politics. Activists need to get together and work apolitically, non-tribally and effectively towards the goal of solving climate change.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12939
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:18 pm

Lausten applied another strawman in saying I do not care about the poor. I have never said that and the tone of my posts is quite to the contrary. Please Lausten, stop those bloody straw men. They do not help your argument and make you look stupid.

Famines mostly do not meet my earlier definition of catastrophe anyway. They kill fewer than one million and are not predicted ten years ahead.

The whole point of all of this is simple. It is not possible to predict catastrophes 80 years in advance, and those who make such claims are spouting bull sh!t.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:32 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:18 pm
It is not possible to predict catastrophes 80 years in advance, and those who make such claims are spouting bull sh!t.
How about predicting mass casualties based on population studies/impacts?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12939
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:41 pm

Bobbo

The only truly reliable prediction is of something that has always happened. The next best is from a major trend, which has the impetus to keep going. Like me predicting that technological capability will be a lot greater in 80 years.

There have been many predictions made based on models rather than trends. They can be reasonably accurate in the short term, but tend to become less and less accurate as you move into the future. 80 years is enough to make them total garbage. The problem is that they cannot account for all variables. The further into the future you look, the more the unpredictable variables that crop up.

In the prediction of megadeaths in 80 years, there is no way to account for new technology, political change, economic change, and generally changes in human behaviour. Which makes the conclusions garbage.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:48 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:41 pm
Bobbo

The only truly reliable prediction is of something that has always happened.
and yet you refuse to state any number at all for the number of deaths due to AGW that have already happened. You also refuse to accept the "if/then" proposition extrapolating on very firm demographics and predictable population studies.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:50 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:18 pm
Lausten applied another strawman in saying I do not care about the poor. I have never said that and the tone of my posts is quite to the contrary. Please Lausten, stop those bloody straw men. They do not help your argument and make you look stupid.

Famines mostly do not meet my earlier definition of catastrophe anyway. They kill fewer than one million and are not predicted ten years ahead.

The whole point of all of this is simple. It is not possible to predict catastrophes 80 years in advance, and those who make such claims are spouting bull sh!t.
I realize you think you care about poor people, but the policies and ideas you support do the opposite. Ronald Reagan had this problem.

I mentioned the differences, but for purposes of your request, the similarities are important. I can't predict exactly where a hurricane will land in 2088, but I can predict with accuracy the rise in hurricanes. Similarly, no one in 1950 could have predicted with accuracy which country in Africa would have a famine, but seeing how governments were moving from overt world wars to covert actions and deals with dictators, they did predict what would happen to what was then called the 3rd world.

And I guess we're talking about two different things, since you say "they kill fewer than one million". You are talking about a particular location and period of excessive hunger. If that's your criteria, then you're right, I can't predict exactly when and where AGW will cause a particular person's death. So, you win because you asked the impossible. But, it is possible to know the consequences of our actions. Death by starvation is a daily occurrence. It's predictable. We know the causes. Death by flooding, heat and other problems indirectly caused by climate change will become a daily occurrence. It's predictable.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12939
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:21 pm

Lausten

As long as you appreciate the limitations of predictions, you are closer to understanding my point.

Bobbo
You are not helping when you keep asking me for answers to questions that NO ONE has the answer to.

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Making it better

Post by MikeN » Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:29 pm

There hasn't been an increase in hurricanes. That is predicted, though some say fewer but stronger. There has also not been an increase in strong hurricanes, looking at Cat 4 hitting the US, or global cyclonic energy index. There has been hype over a few hurricanes that THIS IS GLOBAL WARMING.

What hurts the poor the most is to deny them access to cheap energy. I can't pinpoint the deaths that were caused by this lack of cheap energy, but the wealth that comes from it is obvious. One example I can point to is heat wave causing deaths in Europe, because they have gone gaga over global warming and raised energy prices to the point that some people can't afford air conditioning.

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Making it better

Post by MikeN » Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:59 pm

Lance, you asked for a prediction of a catastrophe beforehand. How about this prediction about Venezuela?

"In fact Socialism is not in the least what it pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership of the means of production has created. Since a socialist order of society cannot exist, unless it be as a fragment of Socialism within an economic order resting otherwise in private property, each step leading towards Socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists."

Maybe it's not specific enough, but it was written in 1922.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:13 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:21 pm
Lausten

As long as you appreciate the limitations of predictions, you are closer to understanding my point.

Bobbo
You are not helping when you keep asking me for answers to questions that NO ONE has the answer to.
When you say things like "The only truly reliable prediction is of something that has always happened", you've already shown that you are not serious about this conversation.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:17 pm

MikeN wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:29 pm
There hasn't been an increase in hurricanes.
Really? Says who?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12939
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:40 pm

Lausten wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:13 pm

When you say things like "The only truly reliable prediction is of something that has always happened", you've already shown that you are not serious about this conversation.
I am merely pointing out that, as the old Danish saying goes :" Prediction is difficult, especially about the future."

I add to that two general principles.
1. The further in the future your prediction goes, the less likely it is to be accurate.
2. The more specific the prediction is, the less likely it is to be accurate.

You guys swallowed a very specific prediction 80 years in the future. That is crap.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:18 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:40 pm
Lausten wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:13 pm

When you say things like "The only truly reliable prediction is of something that has always happened", you've already shown that you are not serious about this conversation.
I am merely pointing out that, as the old Danish saying goes :" Prediction is difficult, especially about the future."

I add to that two general principles.
1. The further in the future your prediction goes, the less likely it is to be accurate.
2. The more specific the prediction is, the less likely it is to be accurate.

You guys swallowed a very specific prediction 80 years in the future. That is crap.
I can read. I know what you're saying. Repetition is repetitive.

There is specific data involved in this particular prediction. It involves the earth's atmosphere, which isn't like predicting the stock market or corn yields. There is reason to believe that the changes we are making to the atmosphere now are not something with can easily reverse in a short period. The scale of the changes make this different than most predictions. It just doesn't fit your dataset.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12939
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:32 pm

Lausten

I am not arguing the data set. I am arguing the model. The problem with models is that they deal with a limited number of variables. In particular, they cannot allow for changes that have not been foreseen. For example, they pick on Somalia as an example of where there will be a lot of deaths. This is based on the fact that Somalia is an economic basket case, and the makers of this model ASSUME that Somalia will, for the next 80 years, remain an economic basket case. If you look at Uganda, you will see how shakey such an assumption is. Only 25 years ago, it too, was an economic basket case. Today it is, by African standards, an economic power house, growing at 5% per year.

This prediction by model is a classic nowcast fallacy. They use one major trend, temperature rise, and ignore others such as technology rise and economic growth. They assume for much of the world, that it will remain poor. Recent history shows that this is crazy. The whole world is getting richer. Even subSaharan Africa is growing economically (average over 3% per year. Somalia right now at 4%). You cannot use a model to predict the future when many of your variables are changing and this is not allowed for. Even with the best of will, there will be relevant variables not allowed for due to the fact that they do not immediately appear important.

This prediction by model is not the first. It is a popular method, and ALWAYS winds up wrong. Well, except when predictions are short term, or excessively general.

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Making it better

Post by MikeN » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:28 pm

When I was working with climate models, one thing that struck me was how high Chinese emissions get, eventually becoming the world leading emitter by 2017 or so. I was running these in 2002. China became the leading emitter in 2005. The model predicted 15 years when the answer was 3, ie imminent.

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Making it better

Post by MikeN » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:30 pm

Lausten, that link only goes back to 1980. It even explains that there were previous decades that were higher, but attributes this to bad data. Hurricanes hitting the US, especially big hurricanes will be known farther back. I believe the numbers I gave you were if you go back to the 1960s for the ACE index and even farther for hurricanes.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:11 pm

MikeN wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:30 pm
Lausten, that link only goes back to 1980. It even explains that there were previous decades that were higher, but attributes this to bad data. Hurricanes hitting the US, especially big hurricanes will be known farther back. I believe the numbers I gave you were if you go back to the 1960s for the ACE index and even farther for hurricanes.
You provided cherry picked information, no numbers.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10866
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:36 pm

It should give one pause to see the number of contradictory models. If nothing else, it should inform us that we aren't very good at modelling. It doesn't seem reasonable to simply declare one side wrong and the other right in an arbitrary way. Such a bias would seem to invalidate one's ability to assess the data in a meaningful way.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:11 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:32 pm
Lausten

I am not arguing the data set. I am arguing the model. The problem with models is that they deal with a limited number of variables. In particular, they cannot allow for changes that have not been foreseen.
The problem is not the models, it's how you are using them. When the problem was too much horse waste in New York city the solution was already in the making and it's urgency led to it being implemented. Better example, a model could have shown us that if you set all the oil rigs in Iraq on fire it's going to take years to put them out and result in massive costs. But why would anyone work on a solution to that problem because who would be crazy enough to to do that? What horrible unpredictable situation would lead to that? You couldn't predict the world with all those oil rigs on fire. There would probably be many other disasters happening at the same time and who knows what the priority would be.

Then it happened. Luckily, the war around those rigs was quickly ended, the area could be secured, but there was a few months where those models were frightening. Harder to predict was the human ingenuity that created a robotic solution that moved in and started putting them out. It was amazing. You would say that was predictable, that humans have had worse things happen and dealt with them, therefore it was expected. The people who actually pulled that off, they aren't heroes or geniuses, they're just a normal event, expected. The problem with your view point, there is absolutely no math, no prior probability, no factor that you can plug into a model. You keep saying something is missing from the AGW models, but you never name it, because you can't.

The point of saying "if we don't do anything, in 80 years, this is the world we can expect", is so we WILL do something. The something involves both sides of the equation. Yes, we should be figuring out technical solutions to too much carbon in the air, drought resistant farming, buildings that adapt to changing environments, and we should stop putting so damn much carbon in the air because we know the consequences of that. In case none of those technologies come to fruition or come too little too late. You claim you can predict the future of technology. That is so much more ridiculous than predicting the changes in climate based on thousands of years of seeing how that climate reacts to carbon ppm. That's a model I can bank on. I also know something will change, I hope we'll figure out something, but there is much less predictability of what that will be.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12939
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:35 pm

Well, Lausten, at least you can see that human action will obviate the model, so that in 80 years we will NOT have 1.5 million deaths per year due to global warming. In other words, the model will fail.

There are many reasons models fail. The Club of Rome in its 1972 report (based on a model), called "Limits to Growth " predicted, among other things, that oil would run out by the year 2000. Well, duh!
By the end of the 20th century, LTG was described as "chicken little with a computer."
Incidentally, LTG predicted civilisation collapse in 2072, some years before Bobbos predicted catastrophe.

I prefer Prof. Julian Simon's view that the only thing in short supply is human ingenuity. One of the thoughts I had is in relation to this. Not only is the world population growing, due to reach something between 8 and 16 billion by the year 2100, but educational standards are also increasing by leaps and bounds. Currently in the developed west, university graduates make up about 30% of the population. But globally, it is only 7%. If we take the mid point population estimate for 2100, which is 12 billion and suggest that the whole world will have 30% university education by then, we will have 3.6 billion graduates. That is 700% more than we have today. Think of the increase in human ingenuity!

Models have been used repeatedly to predict the future. They work, up to a point, for short term predictions where the result is sufficiently vague, allowing big error margins. Every time a model is used for longer term predictions, and tries to be specific , it fails. It fall flat on its face in the bull sh!t.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:08 pm

You don't know the future. It might be worse. Do I need to post pictures of what they thought the future would be 80 years ago. Where's my jet pack?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12939
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:10 pm

Totally true, Lausten.
I do not know the future, and nor does anyone else.

Where is your jet pack ?

Try

www.martinjetpack.com

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10866
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:07 am

Lausten wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:11 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:32 pm
Lausten

I am not arguing the data set. I am arguing the model. The problem with models is that they deal with a limited number of variables. In particular, they cannot allow for changes that have not been foreseen.
The problem is not the models, it's how you are using them. When the problem was too much horse waste in New York city the solution was already in the making and it's urgency led to it being implemented. Better example, a model could have shown us that if you set all the oil rigs in Iraq on fire it's going to take years to put them out and result in massive costs. But why would anyone work on a solution to that problem because who would be crazy enough to to do that? What horrible unpredictable situation would lead to that? You couldn't predict the world with all those oil rigs on fire. There would probably be many other disasters happening at the same time and who knows what the priority would be.

Then it happened. Luckily, the war around those rigs was quickly ended, the area could be secured, but there was a few months where those models were frightening. Harder to predict was the human ingenuity that created a robotic solution that moved in and started putting them out. It was amazing. You would say that was predictable, that humans have had worse things happen and dealt with them, therefore it was expected. The people who actually pulled that off, they aren't heroes or geniuses, they're just a normal event, expected. The problem with your view point, there is absolutely no math, no prior probability, no factor that you can plug into a model. You keep saying something is missing from the AGW models, but you never name it, because you can't.

The point of saying "if we don't do anything, in 80 years, this is the world we can expect", is so we WILL do something. The something involves both sides of the equation. Yes, we should be figuring out technical solutions to too much carbon in the air, drought resistant farming, buildings that adapt to changing environments, and we should stop putting so damn much carbon in the air because we know the consequences of that. In case none of those technologies come to fruition or come too little too late. You claim you can predict the future of technology. That is so much more ridiculous than predicting the changes in climate based on thousands of years of seeing how that climate reacts to carbon ppm. That's a model I can bank on. I also know something will change, I hope we'll figure out something, but there is much less predictability of what that will be.
You make a case for urgent action, and we're not denying that the problem is urgent, but the data is insufficient to take strong action, as it was in the clear case of Iraqi oilfields set afire. It was obvious at that time which action was appropriate, despite some erroneous predictions that it might cause a worldwide climate catastrophe.

In other cases, it's foolish to charge ahead without sufficient data. An example was on the reality show "Naked and Afraid" where one of the contestants made the decision to eat a mushroom without knowing if it was poisonous or not, Being hungry, he said something like: "necessity dictates eating this mushroom," and he immediately fell gravely ill and had to be airlifted to a hospital.

We are not yet in such a grave position where taking a large risk using insufficient data is necessary. Most reasonable climate predictions fall far short of the direst and most alarming scenarios, so it's just good judgement to allow science to do its work, and continue to enhance our understanding as time goes on, doing as much as is prudent with the information available.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:15 am

landrew wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:07 am

We are not yet in such a grave position where taking a large risk using insufficient data is necessary.
What very specifically do you base this on?

IOW: what damages are you willing to accept BEFORE you go ahead and correct the climate so as to avoid those very outcomes?

This assumes but can you confirm that you already accept the damages that have already occurred and are occurring now?==>or are you like Lance totally comfortable with the lives/life styles/history already lost and so are ignored in your isolated comfort zone?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12939
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:32 am

Bobbo

The disasters you write about are in the future. Landrew is saying that drastic action is not yet needed, and I agree. That is not the same as saying no action is needed. We should be acting in order to mitigate the warming, but not using methods that are horribly risky.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:39 am

Sorry Lance: you are avoiding a very clear and simple question. Read it and try to find it........its the words just in front of the "?" mark.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12939
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:11 am

As before, Bobbo, you see the answer to your question, but fail to accept it. I presume you do not, because you do not like the answer.

I have told you that the damages so far are still minimal. It is the future that counts. If you still fail to accept my answer, that is your problem.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:22 am

All you give is dismissive ignorance based foregone conclusions. WHERE IS YOUR DATA?

eg: I have oft stated the One Million Deaths in Syria caused by AGW induced drought forcing farmers off the land and into cities thereby fomenting revolt. "Population Dislocation" is an oft stated consequence of AGW..............and civil unrest/riots is a common result. You either deny or ignore this singular example..................there are dozens more.

Only the RICH perform this alchemy and urge it on the rest of us.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10866
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:11 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:15 am
landrew wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:07 am

We are not yet in such a grave position where taking a large risk using insufficient data is necessary.
What very specifically do you base this on?
I think my answer to that question would sound a lot like your answer; my reading of the data, scientific opinion, and my own compass.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:15 am

IOW: what damages are you willing to accept BEFORE you go ahead and correct the climate so as to avoid those very outcomes?

This assumes but can you confirm that you already accept the damages that have already occurred and are occurring now?==>or are you like Lance totally comfortable with the lives/life styles/history already lost and so are ignored in your isolated comfort zone?
Where we differ is where we lie on the spectrum. I don't believe the situation is anywhere near as dire as the scenarios you portray. I believe that your position is far off-center, and at the opposite end from those who deny AGW. It also makes us nearer the center appear as "deniers" to you, and you have said as much. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you have to admit that not everyone has your same viewpoint.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:22 pm

landrew wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:07 am
You make a case for urgent action, and we're not denying that the problem is urgent, but the data is insufficient to take strong action....

We are not yet in such a grave position where taking a large risk using insufficient data is necessary.....
You are pretty close to disagreeing with yourself, or at least Lance. Lance is saying, AGW is bad, but we'll figure it out. You are saying, it's bad, but not that bad. Both of you are misusing data. Either you are ignoring the models, or you telling others to ignore them because that's not what will really happen. Duh, that's why it's called a model. It's trying to predict what will happen if certain things don't change. That's how we know what we do need to change. Specifically, AGW models are saying, don't let things get worse, i.e. stop doing what we're doing now, because they will be harder to fix later.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10866
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:31 pm

Lausten wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:22 pm
landrew wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:07 am
You make a case for urgent action, and we're not denying that the problem is urgent, but the data is insufficient to take strong action....

We are not yet in such a grave position where taking a large risk using insufficient data is necessary.....
You are pretty close to disagreeing with yourself, or at least Lance. Lance is saying, AGW is bad, but we'll figure it out. You are saying, it's bad, but not that bad. Both of you are misusing data. Either you are ignoring the models, or you telling others to ignore them because that's not what will really happen. Duh, that's why it's called a model. It's trying to predict what will happen if certain things don't change. That's how we know what we do need to change. Specifically, AGW models are saying, don't let things get worse, i.e. stop doing what we're doing now, because they will be harder to fix later.
No, you're building straw men again. Your assessments are based on your own criteria, as mine are based on my own. If I assess the problem to be less dire than you have, it doesn't constitute a "misuse of data." You don't have that power; it's simply not about you.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12939
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:45 pm

Bobbo

I am aware of the hypothesis you stated about Syria, but the strongest probability is that it is wrong.

That war began with demonstrations in the cities against the tyrant. It was a continuation of similar activity in other Arab nations as part of what was called the Arab Spring. The dictator got his soldiers to open fire on the demonstrators, and it went from there into armed conflict. Global warming had nothing to do with it.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10866
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:52 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:45 pm
Bobbo

I am aware of the hypothesis you stated about Syria, but the strongest probability is that it is wrong.

That war began with demonstrations in the cities against the tyrant. It was a continuation of similar activity in other Arab nations as part of what was called the Arab Spring. The dictator got his soldiers to open fire on the demonstrators, and it went from there into armed conflict. Global warming had nothing to do with it.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:05 am

landrew wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:31 pm
Lausten wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:22 pm
landrew wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:07 am
You make a case for urgent action, and we're not denying that the problem is urgent, but the data is insufficient to take strong action....

We are not yet in such a grave position where taking a large risk using insufficient data is necessary.....
You are pretty close to disagreeing with yourself, or at least Lance. Lance is saying, AGW is bad, but we'll figure it out. You are saying, it's bad, but not that bad. Both of you are misusing data. Either you are ignoring the models, or you telling others to ignore them because that's not what will really happen. Duh, that's why it's called a model. It's trying to predict what will happen if certain things don't change. That's how we know what we do need to change. Specifically, AGW models are saying, don't let things get worse, i.e. stop doing what we're doing now, because they will be harder to fix later.
No, you're building straw men again. Your assessments are based on your own criteria, as mine are based on my own. If I assess the problem to be less dire than you have, it doesn't constitute a "misuse of data." You don't have that power; it's simply not about you.
It's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of a body of scientists using one of the largest datasets in history. If you are modifying that conclusion, you are making it about you.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com