NeoNotes — Conversation - updated
❝❝Pardon, but we're not having a conversation now.
Right now, the "conversation" goes something like this:
"Climate is changing Because it's HUMANITY'S FAULT and WE'RE SCREWING UP THE PLANET!!!!!"
I can no more have a conversation with that than I can talk to a Christian about that Jesus guy dying for everyone's sins. It's faith, it's doctrine, it's dogma. The one thing it isn't, is science. You're either a believer or not, and if not, no one wants to take you seriously.
How is that a conversation?
Science doesn't work on consensus. The law of gravity didn't require a majority vote of the High Council of Scientists before working. It described a behavior which could be replicated and measured.
As for that 97%, it was a very selective group. It was a study conducted by masters candidate Kendall Zimmerman and her advisor in 2009. Only about 5% were climate scientists. Only 79 were both self-reported climate scientists and had published 50% of their recent peer reviewed papers on climate change. 77 of 79 thought that humans caused climate to change since 1800. That's your 97%, 2.5% of the actual respondents to one (and I emphasize one) online survey.
It was 77 of 79, I'll give you that. The point is that the fix is in. In the 2013 Cook study, a qualifier was added, "among papers taking a position." That translated to 34% of the 12,000 abstracts.
Add the fact that almost every dissenting paper or opinion is dismissed because it dissents, and the question remains.
How is that a conversation?
You're underestimating the money and power that are at stake. Years ago on this very site I was told in no uncertain terms that there was no money or power in fighting climate change. Yet the Energy Transitions Commission is asking for 300 million to 600 million per year. Al Gore in particular has made a ton of money scare-mongering and "shaming" dissenters despite being massively wrong in his predictions.
You keep talking about faulty methodologies and I keep coming back to those faulty models that can't predict what has happened, is happening, and will happen.
There are reasons I made the Christian analogy. You can't sit at the table or even in the same room if you dissent.
There are three main points I've made in this thread. One, science isn't about consensus, it's about what can be measured and predicted. Second, the "97%" isn't really 97%. Third (and most importantly), the climate models don't predict.
We keep tiptoeing around that last one.
Consensus is not proof. It's literally an article of faith. It's no different than what evangelical Christians use to convince people that Christianity is "true." The "97%" is highly selective. You yourself have repeatedly dismissed any dissenting scientists not because of their reputation, not because of their ability, not because of their evidence, but because they dissent.
“Climate models don't predict with exact certainty what is going to happen from year to year in a given place as a result of climate change.”
Except that is literally the argument. The models say this will happen if that behavior continues. Allow x amount of CO2 and the temperature will increase y degrees. It's not even a linear relationship, the models describe a cascade effect which has never been observed or measured. There's every reason to believe that the cascade is an artifact of the models themselves.
“Most of the world's population lives with economic and political and physical infrastructure which just creaks by in the very best of times.” Absolutely immaterial to any discussion of climate change.
“Without engaging in any sort of prediction or modeling or guesswork about climate, we can say that the current fossil fuel economy sucks.” True, and also absolutely immaterial to any discussion of climate change. There's also the small matter that if a global ban on fossil fuels were put into place, it would hit the undeveloped world harder. Unless of course they were exempted. Which doesn't really solve the problem of using fossil fuels, does it?
"The difference between the climate change doctrine and the Jesus argument is hard data produced by scientific methods…"
No, it's not. The entire anthropogenic climate change argument is based on computer models which are not accurate, including a 20 plus year "pause" which the models can't account for. What has been predicted is not what we are measuring. That's why it is not science.
Then we get to the accuracy of the data. Except we know the numbers were fudged to fit the theory. Among other things, the original data for the infamous "hockey stick" doesn't exist anymore (see Climategate).
The Petition Project has 31,000 scientists agreeing "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...".
But my favorite recent bit was how NYTimes columnist Bret Stephens was flamed for a column that said this: ❝Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.❞ There were demands that he be fired and the Times issue a blanket apology and clarification.
Again, how is this a conversation?
“What do you think then is the cause of the global rise in average temperature?”
Pardon, do you mean other than natural cycles that have been occurring for several billion years? In the Northern hemisphere, we know that August runs hotter than December because of one such natural cycle.
Oh, and can you tell me what the global temperature is supposed to be? I'd be very leery of anyone who "knew."
The "hottest year on record" goes back to 1880, more or less. Accurate sea temperatures are much more sketchy before satellites.
I am not saying that climate doesn't change. I'm questioning the idea that humanity is mostly responsible for catastrophic climate shifts, or that catastrophic shifts are occurring.
What bothers me is that we can't discuss this. That's why my first post on this thread said we're not having a conversation.
“The thing is we understand the causes of these…”
No, we don't. We have a reasonably good idea about some of them.
I threw in the bit about "set" temperature because it's at the very heart of the anthropogenic climate change argument.
Yes, we're adding CO2 in minuscule amounts. The (inaccurate) climate models assume that there's a tipping point where a cascade effect will take place. While these tipping points aren't unusual in nature, there's nothing outside the models showing that this particular tipping point exists.
Based on historical evidence, I'd believe that sunspots and other solar activity have a bigger effect on Earth (and Mars) climate than CO2 changes. A couple of decades ago, there was a study that showed Mars had temperature shifts at about the same time that Earth had it's own shifts. That suggests that either we're polluting Mars or something else is happening.
I'd still like to know why we're not planting more trees to solve the problem.
It's never a conversation, it's always a sermon.
I didn't bring up the numbers about consensus. I didn't even bring up the bit about consensus. That was done to refute my point about this not being a conversation.
For the moment, forget what you've read or been told about climate change. Look at how this is being said. Isn't this the same as Christian apologists, right down to the writings and "accepted facts" that no one is supposed to question?
I've dealt with the same tactics from certain Christians. It comes from politics too (all sides). Certain RadFems do the same exact thing. And yes, from some climate change alarmists. I may not be the smartest guy in the room, but along about the fourth or fifth time it's hard not to notice a pattern. One of the sure signs is a conversation, but, "thou shalt not dissent" from the accepted wisdom.
Science is all about challenging the accepted wisdom and asking the uncomfortable questions. It's about observing and finding new ways to measure. It's about testing ideas and even fundamental principles. If we're not allowed to ask the questions, then the knowledge will forever be beyond our reach.
And that's it. The article of faith that no matter what I say, no matter what I do, no matter what evidence I present, I must not be allowed to challenge.
"Thou shalt not dissent."
It wouldn't matter so much except it's the justification for radical changes in policy and society, all in the name of a "greater good" that cannot be debated or questioned.
It takes away freedom. It demands sacrifice. And it is Too Important to let anything stand in the way.❞❞
blog comments powered by Disqus