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 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:14 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
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
You have lost the argument. You have pulled the plug and claimed we can't know anything. We are talking about a model based on one of the largest sets of data ever collected. We are doing that because we identified a grave danger 50 years ago and we agreed it needed to be addressed. It's not a game where someone guesses deaths in the future and wins a stuffed animal if they are right. It's an explanation of where we are now and what is likely to happen if we keep doing the things we are doing now. All of that is based on data and calculations and known reactions to our actions. You make up something about how smart we are and claim that is a factor that you can input into that equation. You give only vague evidence and ignore counter evidence. You don't show your work. You don't put a number to your probability. You sit there and say the model will be proven wrong. Of course it will. The model will be different tomorrow. That's why science keeps doing science.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:27 am

Lausten wrote:
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.
You have what Michael Shermer calls a "negativity bias." He explains it as someone wanting to believe the worst version of the story most of the time. He also said that it explains why so many climate change activists are excessively pessimistic. I agree with him completely.

He makes that point in this podcast, at around the 41:00 mark.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12941
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:43 am

Lots of scientists, Lausten, using massive data sets, have made predictions and fallen on their faces in the resulting bullsh!t. In fact, the bigger the data set, the more complex the model, and the more opportunity to go wrong.

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 1:59 am

landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:27 am
Lausten wrote:
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.
You have what Michael Shermer calls a "negativity bias." He explains it as someone wanting to believe the worst version of the story most of the time. He also said that it explains why so many climate change activists are excessively pessimistic. I agree with him completely.

He makes that point in this podcast, at around the 41:00 mark.
How is the consensus opinion the "worst version"?
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 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:00 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:43 am
Lots of scientists, Lausten, using massive data sets, have made predictions and fallen on their faces in the resulting bullsh!t. In fact, the bigger the data set, the more complex the model, and the more opportunity to go wrong.
That is not how you calculate probability. Nor is it how you make a decision about how much pollution you should keep spewing into the atmosphere.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12941
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:33 am

Nor are we suggesting we should keep spewing pollution into the air.

You are Bobbo keep coming back to the same old straw man.
My point is simply that detailed predictions 80 years in the future, based on dubious models, should be treated with all the skepticism this forum is named for.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:48 am

Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:59 am

How is the consensus opinion the "worst version"?
Consensus has nothing to do with what's true or not. You don't "vote" on scientific conclusions.

Each of us has the responsibility to think for ourselves, and I emphasize "think."
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 3:14 am

landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:48 am
Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:59 am

How is the consensus opinion the "worst version"?
Consensus has nothing to do with what's true or not. You don't "vote" on scientific conclusions.

Each of us has the responsibility to think for ourselves, and I emphasize "think."
Consensus is not voting. There is no way you can be on this forum for this long and heard that.
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 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:16 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:33 am
Nor are we suggesting we should keep spewing pollution into the air.

You are Bobbo keep coming back to the same old straw man.
My point is simply that detailed predictions 80 years in the future, based on dubious models, should be treated with all the skepticism this forum is named for.
Skepticism is not doubting scientific consensus. I thought you were smarter than that.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:23 am

Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:14 am
landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:48 am
Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:59 am

How is the consensus opinion the "worst version"?
Consensus has nothing to do with what's true or not. You don't "vote" on scientific conclusions.

Each of us has the responsibility to think for ourselves, and I emphasize "think."
Consensus is not voting. There is no way you can be on this forum for this long and heard that.
Consensus can easily be wrong, and it often has. But there's nothing scientific in just following along with what others say. It's also not an intelligent way to develop your own opinions.

"What do you think, Lausten?"
"I dunno, what do those guys think?"
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12941
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:33 am

Lausten is misusing the idea of consensus. We can say that there is consensus on the idea that the world is warming, due to human activity. We know that 97% of climate scientists agree on that, so it is close enough to consensus.

But the idea that we can make an accurate prediction that 1.5 million people will die each year round the year 2100 due to global warming. Well, no. There is no consensus on that. Just a group of people who worked on a model and published what they calculated. It would not surprise me if some of those publishing that model did not truly believe the results

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:09 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:33 am
Lausten is misusing the idea of consensus. We can say that there is consensus on the idea that the world is warming, due to human activity. We know that 97% of climate scientists agree on that, so it is close enough to consensus.

But the idea that we can make an accurate prediction that 1.5 million people will die each year round the year 2100 due to global warming. Well, no. There is no consensus on that. Just a group of people who worked on a model and published what they calculated. It would not surprise me if some of those publishing that model did not truly believe the results
I'll be labeled a denier for this, but the "97% consensus" turns out to be a myth:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2 ... 6dc3611157
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Making it better

Post by MikeN » Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:46 am

CO2 is not pollution.

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Making it better

Post by MikeN » Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:57 am

There is a consensus among climate scientists that the planet is warming, with most of the blogging skeptics agreeing as well.
There is a consensus that CO2 causes the planet to warm, with most blogging skeptics in agreement with this.
There is a consensus that the higher CO2 level in the atmosphere are caused by the use of fossil fuels, with most skeptics in agreement.
There is a lesser consensus that the human CO2 increase is responsible for most of the warming, but not a consensus among skeptics.
There is a lesser support for planet will warm 4C because of more CO2. Skeptics mostly against.
There is less support for the damage to come from global warming, with even more skeptics against.
There is less support for the green agenda being a solution to global warming, with even more skeptics against.
I think the majority of climate scientists would break come between the 3rd and 4th items, particularly since IPCC reported 3C as the midrange level, with AR4 having a best guess of 3C. This guess was removed from the latest report because of so much disagreement, and the methods they have used before would have yielded something less than 2C as the best guess, not alarming enough.

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Making it better

Post by MikeN » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:18 am

30% of global warming emissions from USA and Europe, vs 70% from developing world.
Latter is growing 5% a year.

So in 20 years time, you can have: (Using current numbers as baseline = 100)
USA + Europe cuts by 80% = 6
Rest of world grows 5% a year, = 186

or USA + Europe do not do massive cuts, stay even, = 30
Rest of the world grows 2% a year, = 104

The total is 192 in the first scenario, and 134 in the second. Both are an increase and higher than the scientists are calling for, by a factor of at least 10, but which looks closer to solving the problem?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18889
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:26 am

Dictionary says: pollution: Undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities

What does Mike say?
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
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Making it better

Post by OutOfBreath » Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:38 am

MikeN wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:18 am
30% of global warming emissions from USA and Europe, vs 70% from developing world.
Latter is growing 5% a year.

So in 20 years time, you can have: (Using current numbers as baseline = 100)
USA + Europe cuts by 80% = 6
Rest of world grows 5% a year, = 186

or USA + Europe do not do massive cuts, stay even, = 30
Rest of the world grows 2% a year, = 104

The total is 192 in the first scenario, and 134 in the second. Both are an increase and higher than the scientists are calling for, by a factor of at least 10, but which looks closer to solving the problem?
In that theoretical, how would you go about limiting "rest of the world" to 2% growth? China would want to know...
False dilemma here. We will need to cut everywhere to have a shot of getting close. And politically, having the west say "we're staying where we are, and btw, you cant grow fast enough to avoid massive poverty", is an enormous non-starter that wont happen.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18889
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:00 am

Cutting is not enough.

co2 must be removed from the atmosphere........not increased as continued growth everywhere demands.

..................................we are truly screwed.
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
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Making it better

Post by OutOfBreath » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:13 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:00 am
Cutting is not enough.

co2 must be removed from the atmosphere........not increased as continued growth everywhere demands.

..................................we are truly screwed.
Most likely. So start cutting as soon and as much as possible. We can relax the cuts if there is a tech save at some later point.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18889
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:29 am

Ha, ha........its a real dilemma. Why should I cut pollution thereby saving my own life if it also saves that guy over there who is not cutting?

Its a real puzzler.
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 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:48 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:23 am
Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:14 am
landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:48 am
Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:59 am

How is the consensus opinion the "worst version"?
Consensus has nothing to do with what's true or not. You don't "vote" on scientific conclusions.

Each of us has the responsibility to think for ourselves, and I emphasize "think."
Consensus is not voting. There is no way you can be on this forum for this long and heard that.
Consensus can easily be wrong, and it often has. But there's nothing scientific in just following along with what others say. It's also not an intelligent way to develop your own opinions.

"What do you think, Lausten?"
"I dunno, what do those guys think?"
You can look up what the word means. It's not what you're saying here.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:52 pm

Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:48 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:23 am
Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:14 am
landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:48 am
Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:59 am

How is the consensus opinion the "worst version"?
Consensus has nothing to do with what's true or not. You don't "vote" on scientific conclusions.

Each of us has the responsibility to think for ourselves, and I emphasize "think."
Consensus is not voting. There is no way you can be on this forum for this long and heard that.
Consensus can easily be wrong, and it often has. But there's nothing scientific in just following along with what others say. It's also not an intelligent way to develop your own opinions.

"What do you think, Lausten?"
"I dunno, what do those guys think?"
You can look up what the word means. It's not what you're saying here.
I did look it up. A show of hands or some other means of counting is necessary to indicate a consensus, essentially voting.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18889
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:57 pm

Consensus: Full agreement between a number of people

Ha, ha........kinda misses the point. Like many areas of philosophy, I'll add there is a strong vs weak notion of consensus: Strong is 100% where EVERYBODY AGREES. Weak consensus has various levels of agreement not falling below 50.1%....and I'm not sure about that .1.

That said Is there ever consensus on anything? Strong Consensus??? How about Gravity is an effect of the warping of the space/time continuum? Does the Brain Dead 80yo ex Nobel Winner sayings its all string theory of his own design destroy what EVERYONE but him thinks?

anyway: Science is not magic. It proceeds by strong consensus. 99% of what anybody thinks is based on strong consensus.

Just pay attention to what you think, how, and why.........
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: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:13 pm

Consensus is not science. Not so long ago, germ theory was not the consensus, and its proponents were ridiculed and dismissed. Consensus can be wrong.

The scientific consensus regarding AGW is just over 80% according to the article I linked, which is significant and not to be dismissed. You can't assume that the 20% who question should be ignored. That's not how science works. As with germ theory, it's up to science to do the work to test the ideas being claimed, and progress will eventually be made. No progress is being made by the social activists who are focused on changing minds instead of learning the facts.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18889
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:28 pm

Science doesn't "do" anything...........and it proceeds by consensus.

compare and contrast to: "block head."
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: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:34 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:28 pm
Science doesn't "do" anything...........and it proceeds by consensus.

compare and contrast to: "block head."
Probably the biggest mis-statement you've made so far. Would we have germ theory today if science had "proceeded by consensus?"
Seriously, rethink that one.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18889
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:37 pm

landrew: one consensus is superceded by another. Its called correcting mistakes or in its finer moments: refining the theory. You have made consensus a boogey word in your mind rather than what it simply means: people agreeing...........which we all do most of the time.
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: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:37 pm
landrew: one consensus is superceded by another. Its called correcting mistakes or in its finer moments: refining the theory. You have made consensus a boogey word in your mind rather than what it simply means: people agreeing...........which we all do most of the time.
No, I get it. Follow the crowd or be uncool.

But science is a little more grown up. Acting on a consensus is what happens in a knowledge vacuum. Example: a minibus is on the road to Disneyland, and the driver stops at a fork in the road, unsure which way to go. He asks the passengers for a show of hands to go either right or left. The majority vote to go right. Just before he's ready to, he finds a map under the seat, looks at it, and says "Never mind, we're going left."

I never said I disagreed with the consensus, I only acknowledged that an element of doubt exists, and science isn't finished as long as significant doubt exists. No one but a fool says the science of climate change is fully understood. Science doesn't advance unless ideas are challenged and tested. Science ceases to work when everyone says, "all settled, nothing more needs to be done." We'd still be dying by the thousands of cholera if the consensus had had its way a century ago regarding germ theory.
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 3:51 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:33 am
Lausten is misusing the idea of consensus. We can say that there is consensus on the idea that the world is warming, due to human activity. We know that 97% of climate scientists agree on that, so it is close enough to consensus.

But the idea that we can make an accurate prediction that 1.5 million people will die each year round the year 2100 due to global warming. Well, no. There is no consensus on that. Just a group of people who worked on a model and published what they calculated. It would not surprise me if some of those publishing that model did not truly believe the results
You may be right about those who put their name on that study. And you are right that the numbers about deaths don't have a consensus. I didn't really say that though and what you are doing is far worse. They are using data arrived at over years of work and fact checking and repeated experiments (that's a partial definition of consensus). They are using that data and applying it, again using proven techniques, showing their work and plugging probabilities into formulas. You could refute any one of hundreds of data points or uses of data. You don't. That's why what you are doing is so wrong. You are pulling data out of your butt. You are ignoring data. You are not assigning probabilities to anything.

Saying things always work out in the end is not a probability. If anything, it is violation of your own made up thing, nowcasting. You are saying that since we solved or at least survived all those other smaller problems, we will survive the one that is effecting the entire globe and will strike geographically randomly but in frequency, predictably. You don't even do the calculations for the things you say we should do. You say everything will be fine and we're doing enough, but never adding up the cost of what you say we should continue to do or look at the predicted effort required to do them. It seems to me we are pretty much on track with what was predicted for the increase in computing power, quality of batteries, efficiency of renewables and pretty much everything else. Actually, they were underestimating how quickly the ice would melt and how fast the temperature would rise, which means if you had said these exact same things about being alarmist 50 years ago, you'd be proven wrong. My guess is you were saying them.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:15 pm

I used to believe that things "eventually work themselves out fine." They do, but it's not always fine. World War II was a horrífic tragedy that eventually got worked out, but at horrendous cost. My choice to take a non-extreme stance on climate change has nothing to do with my blind faith in the future. It has to do with realism and my familiarity with the facts.

I also recognize that there has been a good deal of "Lyin' for Jesus" in the name of climate change, where some people have judged that its easier to change minds when scarier stories are told. This not only harms their own cause, sacrifices their credibility, but it tends to derail the climate debate into a tribal squabble, which confuses, stalls and gridlocks the business of dealing with the real facts of climate change.
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 7:01 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:15 pm
I used to believe that things "eventually work themselves out fine." They do, but it's not always fine. World War II was a horrífic tragedy that eventually got worked out, but at horrendous cost. My choice to take a non-extreme stance on climate change has nothing to do with my blind faith in the future. It has to do with realism and my familiarity with the facts.

I also recognize that there has been a good deal of "Lyin' for Jesus" in the name of climate change, where some people have judged that its easier to change minds when scarier stories are told. This not only harms their own cause, sacrifices their credibility, but it tends to derail the climate debate into a tribal squabble, which confuses, stalls and gridlocks the business of dealing with the real facts of climate change.
You two are so repetitive. You can't put any numbers to your claim of "non-extreme", you can't show any of this lying you are talking about. You think you can, but you don't. When you provide an example of this "sacrificing credibility" you cite someone who wasn't credible in the first place. When someone shows you all the non-credible people who deny the scientific calculations, you say those aren't the ones you mean. You created the very squabble you are complaining about.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12941
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:14 pm

In 1972, the Club of Rome was considered one of the most reputable groups on the planet, and their Limits to Growth was widely hailed as a breakthrough. Nevertheless, it was crap.

My attack is based on history. Sociological models are of limited value and have always been so. You cannot make detailed predictions of the human condition 80 years ahead and expect anything else other than more crap. Lausten and Bobbo believe that crap because it suits their emotional stance. That is like a religious person believing people go to heaven when they die because it suits their emotions. Religious faith is religious gullibility. Faith in ridiculous detailed, long term computer models, when all similar models have failed, is the same form of gullibility.

I am prepared to make vague predictions, but never in any detail. I am happy to say that in 80 years, barring some major disaster like an asteroid strike or nuclear war, human technological capability will be much greater than today. But I would not predict an air conditioned, cooling set of clothes, because that is too detailed, and such a prediction cannot be justified. The further into the future, the more vague a prediction has to be, or else be shown as idiotic.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:31 pm

Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:01 pm

You two are so repetitive. You can't put any numbers to your claim of "non-extreme", you can't show any of this lying you are talking about. You think you can, but you don't. When you provide an example of this "sacrificing credibility" you cite someone who wasn't credible in the first place. When someone shows you all the non-credible people who deny the scientific calculations, you say those aren't the ones you mean. You created the very squabble you are complaining about.
You are as impervious to reasoned arguments as ever. You offer nothing in rebuttal, except the old and lame, "citations please." where you expect me to bear the burden of proof for my own reasoned and informed opinions. We are not idiots (speaking for myself) here, who constantly throw other people's opinions back and forth as though we know nothing ourselves. I've had decades to inform my opinions, from reading, observing, studying and working. I would expect you to say the same, but I don't insult you by asking you for citations for the opinions you express. You don't seem to know the difference between a specific claim, which can be supported by data, and an informed opinion, based on analysis of what a person has experienced.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Making it better

Post by MikeN » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:48 pm

OOB, I agree with you about not keeping poor countries poor. That is why I did not use reducing their CO2 emissions in the scenario. Previously I said the only valid solution is to make CO2 free energy so cheap that other countries will flock to it. Instead, the current plan is to make fossil fuels more expensive in US and Europe and wherever else they can control, combined with subsidies and mandates for renewable energy(except hydro!).

Now this solution of cheap renewable is a magic bullet, but lowering 5% growth to 2% growth is not. These countries are opening coal plants. We can make sure they are efficient designs. We can boost natural gas exports, though this turned into a disaster when Al Gore and his Greenpeace buddies tried it in India for an Enron power plant in Maharashtra. We can help with land conservation, tree replanting, boosting agricultural output, reducing the impact of land use, which acts separately from CO2 to produce global warming.

All of those small things Lance listed, become relevant when the goal is lowering 5% growth to 2% growth. It is not keeping people in poverty when someone else is paying for it.

The bottom line is you can spend the same resources, and have 30% less CO2 emissions than the preferred plan of passing the green agenda in US and Europe.

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 8:13 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:31 pm
Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:01 pm

You two are so repetitive. You can't put any numbers to your claim of "non-extreme", you can't show any of this lying you are talking about. You think you can, but you don't. When you provide an example of this "sacrificing credibility" you cite someone who wasn't credible in the first place. When someone shows you all the non-credible people who deny the scientific calculations, you say those aren't the ones you mean. You created the very squabble you are complaining about.
You are as impervious to reasoned arguments as ever. You offer nothing in rebuttal, except the old and lame, "citations please." where you expect me to bear the burden of proof for my own reasoned and informed opinions. We are not idiots (speaking for myself) here, who constantly throw other people's opinions back and forth as though we know nothing ourselves. I've had decades to inform my opinions, from reading, observing, studying and working. I would expect you to say the same, but I don't insult you by asking you for citations for the opinions you express. You don't seem to know the difference between a specific claim, which can be supported by data, and an informed opinion, based on analysis of what a person has experienced.
Asking for citations is an insult? I am reading Richard Carrier's Proving History at the moment. In the middle of explaining how to use probabilities of evidence being correct and estimates of your assumptions, he says this,

Given any belief about the past, you must believe it has some probability of being true or false. And given any probability P, you logically must believe P is either 0 or 1 or some value in between. Only if the claim assigned this probability cannot be denied (if its truth is logically necessary) can P = 1, and only if it literally cannot be true (if its truth is logically impossible) can P = 0, because everything else has some nonzero chance of being true or false, as explained in chapter 2—and as also explained there, even those rare assignments of 1 and 0 cannot really be warranted, since we can sometimes be wrong about what's logically necessary or logically impossible. So nearly every claim has some probability between 0 and 1. Therefore, if P pertains to any claim about history, then P must be some value between 0 and 1. Where between? If you genuinely have no reason to believe P is higher or lower, then that entails that you believe P is 0.5. The latter is simply a translation of the former into a different language. If you disagree with that conclusion, then you either do so irrationally or rationally. If irrationally, then you are no longer participating in valid historical argument. You can safely put this book down. We have no use for you. But if you have a rational objection to the conclusion that P is 0.5, then you must have a valid reason to make P higher or lower, in which case you should raise or lower P accordingly. This is true by definition. If you have any objective reason to believe P is not 0.5, then you must believe it is either higher than 0.5 or lower than 0.5.
You can just read the part in bold and know why I don't bother with you.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18889
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:19 pm

Gee.....I learned in school that probability theory/math was only appropriate for "future events." Somebody has been suckered...............and I give that a probability of .99999999999 which to the astute introduces an entirely different subject.
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: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:20 pm

MikeN wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:48 pm
All of those small things Lance listed, become relevant when the goal is lowering 5% growth to 2% growth. It is not keeping people in poverty when someone else is paying for it.

The bottom line is you can spend the same resources, and have 30% less CO2 emissions than the preferred plan of passing the green agenda in US and Europe.
Those small things are relevant to the goal of lowering 5% growth to 2% growth. But is a 3% reduction of growth relevant to the planet? I don't think we'd notice. That's not really moving the needle.

All the tools at our disposal for fighting climate change are limited and controlled by economics. I've heard the argument that you can't put a price on social issues. Maybe you won't, but the economic costs are nonetheless very real. Nothing happens at the expense of economics, and those who try soon find themselves adrift and oarless. Governments know it's their job to lead such changes, but they are often deadlocked by conflicting political interests and a shortage of money. Raising taxes is often suggested, but most developed countries are democracies, and you can't simply impose something that many voters are opposed to.

But things have improved greatly over the years; I could write a long essay about all things that have changed for the better with how much better we are managing the environment. I'm saying what has been working will continue to work, and it's up to us keep the train on the track, and shovel more coal (bad metaphor) to get us farther down the track towards sustainability. The naysayers need to stop being alarmists, grab a shovel and pitch in.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12941
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:43 pm

Lausten

Your Carrier quote simply says you can assign probabilities. Not very helpful.

Of course, most such assigned probabilities are guesses, and thus meaningless. But if we are playing that game, let me assign a probability (a guess, in other words) to the idea that 1.5 million people will die every year due to global warming by the year 2100. My assigned probability is about 0.001.

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Making it better

Post by MikeN » Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:15 pm

Landrew, look at the numbers I posted above. That 3% reduction leads to an overall 30% reduction over the scenario of US+Europe cuts by 80% while rest of the world grows by 5%.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10877
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:19 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:43 pm
Lausten

Your Carrier quote simply says you can assign probabilities. Not very helpful.

Of course, most such assigned probabilities are guesses, and thus meaningless. But if we are playing that game, let me assign a probability (a guess, in other words) to the idea that 1.5 million people will die every year due to global warming by the year 2100. My assigned probability is about 0.001.
No relevance that I could see. He felt threatened by the last comment, so he threw up a wall of gobbledegook, and an insult. Anything to deflect from acknowledging any criticism of his postings.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.