Proof That Efforts To Curtail AGW Are Working -- February 25, 2019
From Deplorable Climate Science which has incredible wildlife pictures. I think you all saw that Flagstaff, AZ, set all-time records for snowfall this year.
I really hope the older guys can stick around long enough to see this play out. I hate to quote Taleb, but past a certain age there is little to no skin in the game.
Imagine for a moment, driven by tribal loyalties I may or may not be aware of, I have decided I don't like ice cream. I'm a "I don't like ice cream" kind of guy. It's part of my identity now, I even go so far to take the time to write about by dislike of ice cream daily. I could look to thousands of rigorous peer reviewed polling data to confirm my dislike of ice cream, but that data doesn't agree with me. That data shows the vast majority of people like ice cream. All of those polls are rigged, clearly bias, funded by the ice cream lobby.
I have got in the habit of going to a news portal and set of blogs that SLAM the ice cream conspiracy. These sources a chock full of fresh stories all featuring testimonies of people who hate ice cream. Those 807 polls that show most people like ice cream? Well look, this one guy polled people and found very few people like ice cream. The professional pollsters have pointed out the faults in his methodology, but I'll go with that guy anyway as, hey, I don't like ice cream. Clearly, no one likes ice cream.
I can't find the graphs that show the polling of political attitudes by industry I saw this morning. It would do a good job of demonstrating just how much we bend reality to favor our situations rather than trying to see the situation as objectively as possible. If objective was the default we wouldn't see facts depend on one's career so strongly.
All this being said, I spend plenty of time poking holes with friends arguments who want to go full in GND. Clearly you understand the energy mix much better than the average person. The reality of C02's correlation to trapping energy in atmosphere is just a starting fact, you then have to decide how to deal with that fact. That's the tricky part. It's in the realm of possibility that many strategies of dealing with it are more expensive and harmful than the problem itself.
I'd link to Exxon, Shell, Conocophillips, and BP's corporate climate change statement pages or perhaps link to the Defense Department's climate threat assessment, but I don't want to cause a glitch in the denial "movie." ;)
1. With regard to "skin in the game," now that we have only twelve more years -- Occasional-Cortex -- it looks like most of us old-timers will live long enough to see this play out.
2. The "AGW" blogs linked at the sidebar at the right give me an incredible cross-section of stories on the subject.
3. With regard to "bending reality to favor our situations," that is human nature. Scott Adams talks about that ad nauseum. In fact, I finally got tired of him and no longer link him, follow him, or even check in on him. I haven't gone to his site in weeks. But he talked about that a lot, how it is human nature to "bend things to fit our reality." That's why I often talk about my "myth" or "world view."
I'll preface in saying that I've "argued" with people on various topics for a good 15 years of adulthood now and am quite confident no amount of brute force facts would change your mind. Not an insult, that's just how we operate. Even more so as we get older.
I doubt it will work, but I've made pacts with my two closest friends to keep each other accountable and to call each other out if we naturally drift into men that are set in our ways. I think it's likely a much older version of me would look back with, "good luck with that!"
I find the climate debate quite similar to evolution. They're similar as in we have a theory that fits the heaps of evidence, but that deniers will make camp in a few in the grey unexplained areas and hold on for dear life. If you are familiar with a 101 level of how evolution works, then questions like, "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" are quite frustrating. The person who poses this question doesn't understand the basics of what is being argued.
The equivalent of the"why are there still monkeys?" gambit in climate change is, "If the earth is warming why is there record snow in this one place?" Weather in one place isn't global climate in the same way one person disliking ice cream is not a global food trend. Data sets require many data points.
If one wants to honestly figure things out to the best of their ability, I strongly urge them to practice steel manning. The opposite of straw manning. The world is not going to end in 12 years. Absolutely no one sane thinks that. Even Occasional Cortex. This is all on a sliding scale, the 12 year figure is a suggestion from a UN panel in which you can shallow the graph to keep under a 1.5 C warming by 2100. It isn't a deadline, its a financial/human risk assessment. Like compounding interest, the longer you delay investing the more sacrifice it takes to reach your goal. If AOC honestly thinks 12 years is a death deadline, she's a fool. (and I'm of the opinion she's very often a fool)
The National Geographic cover of some years ago had the Statue of Liberty submerged up to "her" midsection -- that was the cover of a well-respected mainstream monthly considered by many to be a respected scientific magazine.
Interesting cover. That depiction of Lady Liberty is if we continued at this pace for 5,000 years. In my estimation misinformative and a disservice to their readers and general public. Sorting through the legitimate boring science has to compete with the sensationalism that gets far more attention.
"The world's ice won't have come close to disappearing by 2100. According to some scientists, that won't happen for at least 5,000 years, and we'd have to burn through the planet's supply of coal, oil, and gas to make it happen."
Example: Pizzagate being total nonsense does not mean that the Clinton's haven't been involved in some legitimate unethical schemes. Pointing to the more extreme untrue claims does not negate the legitimate claims that have good evidence backing them.
I understand all these puzzles are a struggle. I wish you well.
I really hope the older guys can stick around long enough to see this play out. I hate to quote Taleb, but past a certain age there is little to no skin in the game.
ReplyDeleteImagine for a moment, driven by tribal loyalties I may or may not be aware of, I have decided I don't like ice cream. I'm a "I don't like ice cream" kind of guy. It's part of my identity now, I even go so far to take the time to write about by dislike of ice cream daily. I could look to thousands of rigorous peer reviewed polling data to confirm my dislike of ice cream, but that data doesn't agree with me. That data shows the vast majority of people like ice cream. All of those polls are rigged, clearly bias, funded by the ice cream lobby.
I have got in the habit of going to a news portal and set of blogs that SLAM the ice cream conspiracy. These sources a chock full of fresh stories all featuring testimonies of people who hate ice cream. Those 807 polls that show most people like ice cream? Well look, this one guy polled people and found very few people like ice cream. The professional pollsters have pointed out the faults in his methodology, but I'll go with that guy anyway as, hey, I don't like ice cream. Clearly, no one likes ice cream.
Posting now so that it gets posted quickly but busy with family commitments so will reply later.
DeleteI can't find the graphs that show the polling of political attitudes by industry I saw this morning. It would do a good job of demonstrating just how much we bend reality to favor our situations rather than trying to see the situation as objectively as possible. If objective was the default we wouldn't see facts depend on one's career so strongly.
ReplyDeleteAll this being said, I spend plenty of time poking holes with friends arguments who want to go full in GND. Clearly you understand the energy mix much better than the average person. The reality of C02's correlation to trapping energy in atmosphere is just a starting fact, you then have to decide how to deal with that fact. That's the tricky part. It's in the realm of possibility that many strategies of dealing with it are more expensive and harmful than the problem itself.
I'd link to Exxon, Shell, Conocophillips, and BP's corporate climate change statement pages or perhaps link to the Defense Department's climate threat assessment, but I don't want to cause a glitch in the denial "movie." ;)
Posting now so that it gets posted quickly but busy with family commitments so will reply later.
Delete1. With regard to "skin in the game," now that we have only twelve more years -- Occasional-Cortex -- it looks like most of us old-timers will live long enough to see this play out.
Delete2. The "AGW" blogs linked at the sidebar at the right give me an incredible cross-section of stories on the subject.
3. With regard to "bending reality to favor our situations," that is human nature. Scott Adams talks about that ad nauseum. In fact, I finally got tired of him and no longer link him, follow him, or even check in on him. I haven't gone to his site in weeks. But he talked about that a lot, how it is human nature to "bend things to fit our reality." That's why I often talk about my "myth" or "world view."
DeleteI'll preface in saying that I've "argued" with people on various topics for a good 15 years of adulthood now and am quite confident no amount of brute force facts would change your mind. Not an insult, that's just how we operate. Even more so as we get older.
ReplyDeleteI doubt it will work, but I've made pacts with my two closest friends to keep each other accountable and to call each other out if we naturally drift into men that are set in our ways. I think it's likely a much older version of me would look back with, "good luck with that!"
I find the climate debate quite similar to evolution. They're similar as in we have a theory that fits the heaps of evidence, but that deniers will make camp in a few in the grey unexplained areas and hold on for dear life. If you are familiar with a 101 level of how evolution works, then questions like, "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" are quite frustrating. The person who poses this question doesn't understand the basics of what is being argued.
The equivalent of the"why are there still monkeys?" gambit in climate change is, "If the earth is warming why is there record snow in this one place?" Weather in one place isn't global climate in the same way one person disliking ice cream is not a global food trend. Data sets require many data points.
If one wants to honestly figure things out to the best of their ability, I strongly urge them to practice steel manning. The opposite of straw manning. The world is not going to end in 12 years. Absolutely no one sane thinks that. Even Occasional Cortex. This is all on a sliding scale, the 12 year figure is a suggestion from a UN panel in which you can shallow the graph to keep under a 1.5 C warming by 2100. It isn't a deadline, its a financial/human risk assessment. Like compounding interest, the longer you delay investing the more sacrifice it takes to reach your goal. If AOC honestly thinks 12 years is a death deadline, she's a fool. (and I'm of the opinion she's very often a fool)
The National Geographic cover of some years ago had the Statue of Liberty submerged up to "her" midsection -- that was the cover of a well-respected mainstream monthly considered by many to be a respected scientific magazine.
ReplyDeletehttps://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130913-rising-seas-cover-september-statue-liberty-climate-change-global-warming/
That left an indelible imprint for many and it was a completely false narrative.
Interesting cover. That depiction of Lady Liberty is if we continued at this pace for 5,000 years. In my estimation misinformative and a disservice to their readers and general public. Sorting through the legitimate boring science has to compete with the sensationalism that gets far more attention.
ReplyDelete"The world's ice won't have come close to disappearing by 2100. According to some scientists, that won't happen for at least 5,000 years, and we'd have to burn through the planet's supply of coal, oil, and gas to make it happen."
Example: Pizzagate being total nonsense does not mean that the Clinton's haven't been involved in some legitimate unethical schemes. Pointing to the more extreme untrue claims does not negate the legitimate claims that have good evidence backing them.
I understand all these puzzles are a struggle. I wish you well.