The point is that Sique way back when was writing a fairy tale world where "scientists" don't have opinions and don't "tell the government what to do"
But they _don't_ tell the government what to do. Political donars do.
Now, it's a bunch of quibbling over whether this particular scientist, James Hansen was acting in his capacity as "scientist" or not.
So Hansen went political. Do you really think Hansen and the people who review his scientific articles can't tell what is politics and what is science? Or perhaps, hold on, I'm having a revelation! All science is just politics!
Margaret Thatcher and Al Gore were both scientists before they were politicians. Hansen is one or a very few who do both at the same time. (There is also Richard Linzen, John Christy, and a few others. The cohort at the Heartland Institute don't do original research.) Do you think becoming a scientists means you are never never allowed to participate in political discourse, because that would be "telling the government what to do", because like, all those politicians aren't cowed enough by their political donars?
Well, go to the library then. Not everything of value is available free on the interwebs. Serious scholarly articles and books sometimes exist behind paywalls, you you gotta, you know, buy them or borrow them from libraries. If you really are interested in understanding the discourse on environmental issues, Oreskes is a good place to start.
Well that's an interesting point of view. Like you're saying a scientist can't have opinions about anything except their field of expertise -- unlike, for example, yourself, who can have opinions about anything.
Well, I was working at Du Pont at the time as an intern.
There was resistance from US industry -- all the usual disinformation campaigns, all the cries of economic chaos, and then US industry switched when the timing was right technologically speaking. It was advantageous for them to do so. I knew someone who worked on designing a new coolant for Fisher-Paykel, and he described some of the difficulties those guys had. You can also read about the political shenanigans in Naomi Oreskes' book "Merchants of Doubt". Switching away from CFCs was supposed to destroy the economy. It cost next to nothing.
That it is possible, one of the most serious possibilities, and research should be prioritised to quantify the risk if possible. If risk cannot be quantified with a reasonable error bar, then it is left out of risk models, so this type of highly uncertain event is not included on estimated costs of not addressing climate change.
Okay, that's your definition. To me, less that CATASTROPHIC would be catastrophic. For example, if most of the mid-west to California becomes a desert. That's a possibility. Also, all the culture and property that would be flooded by a 1m rise in ocean levels, and subsequent flooding. That's on the cards in 100-200 years. Wouldn't be CATASTROPHIC though. One possible event with very high uncertainty could fuck most of the planet up, but it wouldn't turn the earth into venus. It wouldn't wipe humanity from the entire universe. So I suppose it isn't CATASTROPHIC. So nothing to worry about, eh?
If by CAGW, you mean run-away greenhouse effect, it has been known for some time that factors in the earth climate system will prevent a life-destroying "venus" event. So you are right under that definition. The consensus is ~0% of runaway climate change under plausible carbon-use scenarios. So nothing to worry about, eh?
Well there's nothing in there about the earth's crust melting, so I suppose it depends on what you mean by CAGW doesn't it. To me it means the costs of inaction (weighted by risk) is substantially higher than the costs of effective mitigation. Probably sounds a little boring.
We must invade Iraq because there is a risk terrorists will attack us
The Bush administration had no proof and most of the world knew it at the time, except for a few right-wing ideologues. Even most of congress knew it when they voted for it. (Source "The Party is Over", a book by a Republican senior policy analysis who had top secret clearance, and was there when it all happened.)
Real risk analysis is done with numbers, and with error bars, and actuaries are already putting the prices up on insurance products that have near-term lifespans. You want to know where to find this risk analysis? It's all in the IPCC reports. They're pretty comprehensive. Lots of references. I recommend downloading the latest report and attempting to read it working-group II. It's all about vulnerability and adaption to negative and positive consequences of AGW. Did you realise that they talk about positive consequences in the IPCC reports? It is science.
Getting back to the original point, there's no consensus among scientists as to what the risk actually is.
There is consensus that there is risk, and there is consensus that the risks are not trivial. But you're right, we don't know if it is 1% of CAGW or 25% CAGW or 80% CAGW. Most scientists think the first and last are the least likely. That's why it's referred to as an uncontrolled experiment. The temperature is going up, and it will have consequences, but nobody is sure exactly what they are. So there is probably nothing to worry about, right?
Phasing out CFCs had higher profit margins for the chemical companies and no significant opposition from anyone else, thus it was done.
Oh, it was the chemical lobby. You know there is a real history to this that you can look up. I recommend doing so, because it is a fascinating window into how power structures really work regarding these types of issues.
An actuary calculates some risks and puts a price on it. The rest is an analogy. Actually the field is risk analysis, of which actuarial science is a part, but I though i'd keep it simple with an analogy. Of course that should all be patently obvious, unless you're clutching at straws. So... to return to the main point, you said:
Mature people look for more evidence than, "if we don't do something, there could be a catastrophe!"
It is like no-one ever tried to quantify the risks (they have). You may not see the relationship to insurance, but then again, you are a denier.
Oh yeah, I just re-read the entire thread to make sure I wasn't missing something. You are saying that scientists don't agree on what to do. (Actually, that would be economists and engineers and policy wonks, so you're making a domain error.) Then you get side-tracked by what someone wrote in response, which is what *I* was talking about. And you too. So lets change the topic. Do you know that that is a typical cognitive motif for avoiding being wrong -- that dreaded experience. Well, lost of economists have good ideas on what can be done; however, then you have libertarian theologians and paranoid types who are terrified of teh socialism and teh atheists many collecting medicare and social security, and consider listening to Rush and Beck on par with going to church. But if you actually pay attention to what is happening in the world, you'll see that climate change *IS* being addressed, albeit slowly because of all of the foot dragging, principally by the USA, principally because of Karl Rove and the faith-based community, principally orchestrated by Frank Luntz. But you conservatives are far to smart to be punked by something like that.
Right, because the scientists never thought of that either. And you know, the economy was going to be RUINED by addressing CFC pollution. It would also lead to global world socialist government. This is really what people on the far right said. They really believed it. And they called environmentalists alarmists. I suspect you have no interest in learning anything about the ozone hole, and how what is known is known, and what the error bars are. I mean, who needs error bars when "extrapolating long time behavior from short term data is fraught with peril".
Yeah you're right. One scientist makes policy suggestions. Actually, I was saying that MANY do, but it is irrelevant to the scientific claims. So you see, it's got nothing to do with the "No true scotsman" fallacy. You were just wrong. Simply wrong. Glad we got that sorted out now.
Insurance puts a cost on risk. I suppose you already know that, but "He who does not listen cannot hear". Let's see if you're still reading. If there is a 1% chance your house will burn down each year, and your house is worth $500k, what would be an acceptable price to pay to mitigate an unlikely crisis? Now, here is the challenging part. If there is a 1% chance of CAGW... nah... the dangers of big government are far worse!!!
Isn't Dr Lindzen lead author of Chapter 7 of the recent IPCC report. I thought that document sounds like it only includes one point of view. If you choose your "expert" based on what you want to hear... then sure... the IPCC reports _are_ progressively weaker. Of course, the rest of the climate science community thinks of Lindzen as a crank, but to you he is Galileo. And what that fuck is he talking about? Who cares! He's sticking it to them alarmists!!!
Is there something about that with which you disagree?
Yes. You are making a charge that has no basis in how science works. The Nobel Prizes go to the iconoclasts. So do the paychecks, and all the glory. But you gotta have a substantive criticism to break a theory. Whining about Galileo doesn't cut it. Any idiot can do that.
The IPCC is no longer claiming that AGW will drive increasingly energetic weather events. Unlike all the past reports, they don't even mention it in the latest.
I'd be tempted to take that at face value, except that you almost certainly have no clue what you're talking about. Care to provide a citation to the recent IPCC report that says that they are no longer claiming such? Bet you have not idea where to even start.
The overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology today get paychecks that rely on people being focused on their alarmism.
This is such a stupid claim, because scientists in general are hungry for grant money, and oil companies are hungry for shills. You want money, you just have to sell your PhD, and feed at the trough. But if you have real integrity like Muller did, then watch the deniers turn on you when you fail to say what they want to hear.
But sure, scientists are all just paid off by a government conspiracy.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that Sique way back when was writing a fairy tale world where "scientists" don't have opinions and don't "tell the government what to do"
But they _don't_ tell the government what to do. Political donars do.
Now, it's a bunch of quibbling over whether this particular scientist, James Hansen was acting in his capacity as "scientist" or not.
So Hansen went political. Do you really think Hansen and the people who review his scientific articles can't tell what is politics and what is science? Or perhaps, hold on, I'm having a revelation! All science is just politics!
Margaret Thatcher and Al Gore were both scientists before they were politicians. Hansen is one or a very few who do both at the same time. (There is also Richard Linzen, John Christy, and a few others. The cohort at the Heartland Institute don't do original research.) Do you think becoming a scientists means you are never never allowed to participate in political discourse, because that would be "telling the government what to do", because like, all those politicians aren't cowed enough by their political donars?
Well, go to the library then. Not everything of value is available free on the interwebs. Serious scholarly articles and books sometimes exist behind paywalls, you you gotta, you know, buy them or borrow them from libraries. If you really are interested in understanding the discourse on environmental issues, Oreskes is a good place to start.
omg, you read the entire book already? And you also checked all the references! You are a GENIUS!!!!
Well that's an interesting point of view. Like you're saying a scientist can't have opinions about anything except their field of expertise -- unlike, for example, yourself, who can have opinions about anything.
I don't see oil companies being particularly hungry for shills else they'd have a pile of them.
But they *do* have a pile of them..
Well, I was working at Du Pont at the time as an intern.
There was resistance from US industry -- all the usual disinformation campaigns, all the cries of economic chaos, and then US industry switched when the timing was right technologically speaking. It was advantageous for them to do so. I knew someone who worked on designing a new coolant for Fisher-Paykel, and he described some of the difficulties those guys had. You can also read about the political shenanigans in Naomi Oreskes' book "Merchants of Doubt". Switching away from CFCs was supposed to destroy the economy. It cost next to nothing.
That it is possible, one of the most serious possibilities, and research should be prioritised to quantify the risk if possible. If risk cannot be quantified with a reasonable error bar, then it is left out of risk models, so this type of highly uncertain event is not included on estimated costs of not addressing climate change.
Okay, that's your definition. To me, less that CATASTROPHIC would be catastrophic. For example, if most of the mid-west to California becomes a desert. That's a possibility. Also, all the culture and property that would be flooded by a 1m rise in ocean levels, and subsequent flooding. That's on the cards in 100-200 years. Wouldn't be CATASTROPHIC though. One possible event with very high uncertainty could fuck most of the planet up, but it wouldn't turn the earth into venus. It wouldn't wipe humanity from the entire universe. So I suppose it isn't CATASTROPHIC. So nothing to worry about, eh?
If by CAGW, you mean run-away greenhouse effect, it has been known for some time that factors in the earth climate system will prevent a life-destroying "venus" event. So you are right under that definition. The consensus is ~0% of runaway climate change under plausible carbon-use scenarios. So nothing to worry about, eh?
WG2 doesn't address Catastrophic AGW
Well there's nothing in there about the earth's crust melting, so I suppose it depends on what you mean by CAGW doesn't it. To me it means the costs of inaction (weighted by risk) is substantially higher than the costs of effective mitigation. Probably sounds a little boring.
We must invade Iraq because there is a risk terrorists will attack us
The Bush administration had no proof and most of the world knew it at the time, except for a few right-wing ideologues. Even most of congress knew it when they voted for it. (Source "The Party is Over", a book by a Republican senior policy analysis who had top secret clearance, and was there when it all happened.)
Real risk analysis is done with numbers, and with error bars, and actuaries are already putting the prices up on insurance products that have near-term lifespans. You want to know where to find this risk analysis? It's all in the IPCC reports. They're pretty comprehensive. Lots of references. I recommend downloading the latest report and attempting to read it working-group II. It's all about vulnerability and adaption to negative and positive consequences of AGW. Did you realise that they talk about positive consequences in the IPCC reports? It is science.
Getting back to the original point, there's no consensus among scientists as to what the risk actually is.
There is consensus that there is risk, and there is consensus that the risks are not trivial. But you're right, we don't know if it is 1% of CAGW or 25% CAGW or 80% CAGW. Most scientists think the first and last are the least likely. That's why it's referred to as an uncontrolled experiment. The temperature is going up, and it will have consequences, but nobody is sure exactly what they are. So there is probably nothing to worry about, right?
Mmm... renting. Good option =0.
Phasing out CFCs had higher profit margins for the chemical companies and no significant opposition from anyone else, thus it was done.
Oh, it was the chemical lobby. You know there is a real history to this that you can look up. I recommend doing so, because it is a fascinating window into how power structures really work regarding these types of issues.
Mature people look for more evidence than, "if we don't do something, there could be a catastrophe!"
It is like no-one ever tried to quantify the risks (they have). You may not see the relationship to insurance, but then again, you are a denier.
Oh yeah, I just re-read the entire thread to make sure I wasn't missing something. You are saying that scientists don't agree on what to do. (Actually, that would be economists and engineers and policy wonks, so you're making a domain error.) Then you get side-tracked by what someone wrote in response, which is what *I* was talking about. And you too. So lets change the topic. Do you know that that is a typical cognitive motif for avoiding being wrong -- that dreaded experience. Well, lost of economists have good ideas on what can be done; however, then you have libertarian theologians and paranoid types who are terrified of teh socialism and teh atheists many collecting medicare and social security, and consider listening to Rush and Beck on par with going to church. But if you actually pay attention to what is happening in the world, you'll see that climate change *IS* being addressed, albeit slowly because of all of the foot dragging, principally by the USA, principally because of Karl Rove and the faith-based community, principally orchestrated by Frank Luntz. But you conservatives are far to smart to be punked by something like that.
Right, because the scientists never thought of that either. And you know, the economy was going to be RUINED by addressing CFC pollution. It would also lead to global world socialist government. This is really what people on the far right said. They really believed it. And they called environmentalists alarmists. I suspect you have no interest in learning anything about the ozone hole, and how what is known is known, and what the error bars are. I mean, who needs error bars when "extrapolating long time behavior from short term data is fraught with peril".
Yeah you're right. One scientist makes policy suggestions. Actually, I was saying that MANY do, but it is irrelevant to the scientific claims. So you see, it's got nothing to do with the "No true scotsman" fallacy. You were just wrong. Simply wrong. Glad we got that sorted out now.
Insurance puts a cost on risk. I suppose you already know that, but "He who does not listen cannot hear". Let's see if you're still reading. If there is a 1% chance your house will burn down each year, and your house is worth $500k, what would be an acceptable price to pay to mitigate an unlikely crisis? Now, here is the challenging part. If there is a 1% chance of CAGW... nah... the dangers of big government are far worse!!!
You obviously haven't understood that he wasn't making the "no true scotsman" fallacy? Got it? Of course not.
Mature people buy insurance? You know what that is? Look it up.
Isn't Dr Lindzen lead author of Chapter 7 of the recent IPCC report. I thought that document sounds like it only includes one point of view. If you choose your "expert" based on what you want to hear... then sure... the IPCC reports _are_ progressively weaker. Of course, the rest of the climate science community thinks of Lindzen as a crank, but to you he is Galileo. And what that fuck is he talking about? Who cares! He's sticking it to them alarmists!!!
Is there something about that with which you disagree?
Yes. You are making a charge that has no basis in how science works. The Nobel Prizes go to the iconoclasts. So do the paychecks, and all the glory. But you gotta have a substantive criticism to break a theory. Whining about Galileo doesn't cut it. Any idiot can do that.
The IPCC is no longer claiming that AGW will drive increasingly energetic weather events. Unlike all the past reports, they don't even mention it in the latest.
I'd be tempted to take that at face value, except that you almost certainly have no clue what you're talking about. Care to provide a citation to the recent IPCC report that says that they are no longer claiming such? Bet you have not idea where to even start.
The overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology today get paychecks that rely on people being focused on their alarmism.
This is such a stupid claim, because scientists in general are hungry for grant money, and oil companies are hungry for shills. You want money, you just have to sell your PhD, and feed at the trough. But if you have real integrity like Muller did, then watch the deniers turn on you when you fail to say what they want to hear.
But sure, scientists are all just paid off by a government conspiracy.