My take on climate change is very simple: I'm not a climatologist - and neither is anyone else except professional climatologists. So we know nothing but what the consensus is.
I happen to think that scientific consensus is still the only valid path we have to understanding reality - no matter how many times they get it wrong. And they do get it wrong - frequently. But people who cherry-pick their opposition to the consensus on a given topic are doing so for their own emotional reasons, which are a mix of paranoia and ego-boo ("I'm the only one who sees how this is wrong - because I'm so smart and I can read papers put out by people with crap degrees!"), mostly the latter (notice how these morons gleefully denounce anyone who doesn't believe as they do as "part of the conspiracy".)
The one thing I do believe about the state of the climate is that, if it's true that there is a serious problem, one thing we can count on is that the fractious nature of humans and the state will prevent a solution from being found before they're forced to. But once they're forced to, humans will adapt to the situation. Humans survived ice ages, they can survive this crap, too.
Also keep in mind that part of the "divide and conquer" strategy is bringing up issues just like this and using them to justify further encroachment on people by the state and corporations. And it works because most humans think in binary terms - "either this or that" - and never once consider either a third path or that they've misidentified the entire problem.
This is why I stay out of climate change discussions. Almost everyone discussing it is not qualified to do so, and the ones that are don't agree. So we should let them fight it out and in the meantime concentrate on what we can do personally to be ready for anything that comes.
One doesn't have to be a trained specialist to notice certain types of errors or misconduct. For example,
* arithmetic errors
* misuse of statistics
* leaps of logic
* failure to acknowledge concerns raised by the opposition
* attacks on the opposition's credentials
* use of ill-defined derogatory labels for the opposition
* attempts to censor the opposition.
Unfortunately, consensus is not very informative when the majority of scientists have been conditioned since grade school to accept the science concept in question, most of the older generation of scientists assume that findings that appear in a peer-reviewed journal are reliable, and those who do question what's in the journals have to consider that expressing their concerns publicly can damage their professional standing.
Yes, these are all significant problems with the current situation in science.
None of them change the basic problem of lack of in-depth knowledge of the science in question. As Andrei Martyanov says, one doesn't opine on brain surgery if one has zero education and experience in the field. The question then becomes at what level of education can one's opinion be taken seriously. This is a gray area that some people take advantage of to push their personal agendas.
In addition, most of those problems also apply to the people in opposition to the dominant consensus. This is why consensus is still necessary. This makes it doubly difficult to get at the "real truth" - if such a thing exists.
This is also for RSH. The fundamental sciences at issue are physics and chemistry as I've argued a half-dozen times at MoA. Physics measures the change in the temperature gradient between the Arctic/Antarctic circles and the equator which is lessening as the temps at the poles warm faster than those at the equator. That's verifiable, credible, rock solid evidence. And what does that do? That changes the energy dynamic that drives the jet streams causing them to have different amplitudes--a more wavy appearance that has several very important outcomes, which you can find online if curious. On chemistry, the carbolic acid that enters the oceans via rainfall is increasing because a warmer atmosphere holds more water and thus increases precipitation, which in turn alters the global ocean's Ph but not equally as rainfall distribution is uneven. There are many credible measurements documenting the change in Ph that's attributable to both increased water vapor concentrations and the increasing concentration of CO2 which drives increasing amounts of carbolic acid within the water vapor envelope. Those are the two hard science proofs that change is occurring no denier can refute. At MoA, Norwegian refuses to accept that evidence. I ceased trying to reason with him and instead work with him in the other areas we agreed upon since IMO he's not a troll. Others, like c1ue who were obvious sophisticated trolls, I just ignored after it became clear what they are/were.
There are other changes happening, like animal migrations and coral bleaching events signifying change is happening. I happened to minor in Geology and know about Earth's history and what caused the mass extinction events. Man in many ways overestimates its effect on Nature, forgetting humanity is controlled by Nature, not the other way around, which is one of the Big Problems some modern humans have and need to learn some humility. There is a problem with what's known as overshoot, but it has more to do with resources than climate, which I've mentioned regarding proved hydrocarbon reserves. And most are aware of the Rare Earth issue and its relation to modern technology.
As I move forward with this platform, I'll address most of the above issues I touched on.
My experience has been that once government takes a position on a science issue (or on an issue in practically any domain), it's mission is not to seek the truth on that issue but to bolster its position by virtually any means, such as those I mentioned upthread, biased data collection, faking data, cherrypicking data, faking results, misrepresenting results, and categorical rejection of any but its pet explanation.
This does not mean that the data you (Karl) presented above are faulty, but if they come from a government source (which I presume is the case), then I'd say the data are suspect because the government has for decades had a mission to promote the climate change concept and has employed tactics such as I mentioned above. If the data are valid, then I'm afraid I lack the formal science training to have the kind of discussion I believe both of us would want, and someone like Norwegian at MoA is far better equipped than I in this regard.
IMO, it's healthy to be skeptical of Western government stats for any of the reasons you cite. However, the data I'm using is from non-governmental sources worldwide. And then there're my own observations of how our coastal climate in Oregon is becoming more like California's, which was something predicted over 30 years ago. Then there're the changes to the ocean's ecosystem I also see. Given the entities that control Western governments, they'll use and distort anything if it promotes their interests.
Well said. As we're seeing, the issue is being used as a tool by the Money Power so the focus doesn't shift to it/them. And the Money Power has lots of moola to employ vast armies of obfuscators on any chosen issue. That's why my focus on the Money Power.
> markets will remain markets and perform their economic function, but their purpose is to serve humanity first
Much of the conventional criticism of socialism is that everything is supposedly planned and there are no markets as such. Obviously this is nonsense; the key insight here is that markets are human constructs (not natural phenomenon) and needs to be managed as such. A century or so of libertarian ideology has blinded so many people to this fact.
Thanks for your comment about the nature of markets. There're a few Natural human constructs where their origins are attempted to be hidden and made to seem in a different manner that will be discussed in a New Path essay.
i mostly agree with you, but i think a part of the battle is to challenge some of the commentary too.. the way i saw it gt stroller was stating his view on the abuse of the data clearly and strongly.. now, i can agree this is the 'divide and conquer' strategy to add this into the mix, but if you want to get everyone on the same page - his insight into messing with the science and stats have to be addressed too... unfortunately no one on that thread has done it so far.. mind you i might have missed some commentary and have been away for a few hours...
When that first appeared, I called it out for what it is. Outraged reamed it a few times. Currently, I need to beware of my angst level lest I aggravate the time bomb within me; so, I'm not as pointed as I might otherwise be if I were 100%. That will change next week, provided I survive, which I'm confident I will.
On the actual topic of human induced climate change, I decided 18 months ago or maybe more that I wouldn't engage in that topic as I see it being used to distract from other more important issues that must be confronted first if we're to do anything meaningful about the climate issue. Eventually, I'll tackle that topic with an army of facts. The Russians accept the science because they see the literal facts. Yes, Putin was a skeptic but is now a confirmed believer, which is an odd way of putting it as it sounds like a discussion about religion--metaphysics: Is there a god? Thankfully the trolls haven't begun using that distractor.
My take on climate change is very simple: I'm not a climatologist - and neither is anyone else except professional climatologists. So we know nothing but what the consensus is.
I happen to think that scientific consensus is still the only valid path we have to understanding reality - no matter how many times they get it wrong. And they do get it wrong - frequently. But people who cherry-pick their opposition to the consensus on a given topic are doing so for their own emotional reasons, which are a mix of paranoia and ego-boo ("I'm the only one who sees how this is wrong - because I'm so smart and I can read papers put out by people with crap degrees!"), mostly the latter (notice how these morons gleefully denounce anyone who doesn't believe as they do as "part of the conspiracy".)
The one thing I do believe about the state of the climate is that, if it's true that there is a serious problem, one thing we can count on is that the fractious nature of humans and the state will prevent a solution from being found before they're forced to. But once they're forced to, humans will adapt to the situation. Humans survived ice ages, they can survive this crap, too.
Also keep in mind that part of the "divide and conquer" strategy is bringing up issues just like this and using them to justify further encroachment on people by the state and corporations. And it works because most humans think in binary terms - "either this or that" - and never once consider either a third path or that they've misidentified the entire problem.
This is why I stay out of climate change discussions. Almost everyone discussing it is not qualified to do so, and the ones that are don't agree. So we should let them fight it out and in the meantime concentrate on what we can do personally to be ready for anything that comes.
One doesn't have to be a trained specialist to notice certain types of errors or misconduct. For example,
* arithmetic errors
* misuse of statistics
* leaps of logic
* failure to acknowledge concerns raised by the opposition
* attacks on the opposition's credentials
* use of ill-defined derogatory labels for the opposition
* attempts to censor the opposition.
Unfortunately, consensus is not very informative when the majority of scientists have been conditioned since grade school to accept the science concept in question, most of the older generation of scientists assume that findings that appear in a peer-reviewed journal are reliable, and those who do question what's in the journals have to consider that expressing their concerns publicly can damage their professional standing.
Yes, these are all significant problems with the current situation in science.
None of them change the basic problem of lack of in-depth knowledge of the science in question. As Andrei Martyanov says, one doesn't opine on brain surgery if one has zero education and experience in the field. The question then becomes at what level of education can one's opinion be taken seriously. This is a gray area that some people take advantage of to push their personal agendas.
In addition, most of those problems also apply to the people in opposition to the dominant consensus. This is why consensus is still necessary. This makes it doubly difficult to get at the "real truth" - if such a thing exists.
This is also for RSH. The fundamental sciences at issue are physics and chemistry as I've argued a half-dozen times at MoA. Physics measures the change in the temperature gradient between the Arctic/Antarctic circles and the equator which is lessening as the temps at the poles warm faster than those at the equator. That's verifiable, credible, rock solid evidence. And what does that do? That changes the energy dynamic that drives the jet streams causing them to have different amplitudes--a more wavy appearance that has several very important outcomes, which you can find online if curious. On chemistry, the carbolic acid that enters the oceans via rainfall is increasing because a warmer atmosphere holds more water and thus increases precipitation, which in turn alters the global ocean's Ph but not equally as rainfall distribution is uneven. There are many credible measurements documenting the change in Ph that's attributable to both increased water vapor concentrations and the increasing concentration of CO2 which drives increasing amounts of carbolic acid within the water vapor envelope. Those are the two hard science proofs that change is occurring no denier can refute. At MoA, Norwegian refuses to accept that evidence. I ceased trying to reason with him and instead work with him in the other areas we agreed upon since IMO he's not a troll. Others, like c1ue who were obvious sophisticated trolls, I just ignored after it became clear what they are/were.
There are other changes happening, like animal migrations and coral bleaching events signifying change is happening. I happened to minor in Geology and know about Earth's history and what caused the mass extinction events. Man in many ways overestimates its effect on Nature, forgetting humanity is controlled by Nature, not the other way around, which is one of the Big Problems some modern humans have and need to learn some humility. There is a problem with what's known as overshoot, but it has more to do with resources than climate, which I've mentioned regarding proved hydrocarbon reserves. And most are aware of the Rare Earth issue and its relation to modern technology.
As I move forward with this platform, I'll address most of the above issues I touched on.
My experience has been that once government takes a position on a science issue (or on an issue in practically any domain), it's mission is not to seek the truth on that issue but to bolster its position by virtually any means, such as those I mentioned upthread, biased data collection, faking data, cherrypicking data, faking results, misrepresenting results, and categorical rejection of any but its pet explanation.
This does not mean that the data you (Karl) presented above are faulty, but if they come from a government source (which I presume is the case), then I'd say the data are suspect because the government has for decades had a mission to promote the climate change concept and has employed tactics such as I mentioned above. If the data are valid, then I'm afraid I lack the formal science training to have the kind of discussion I believe both of us would want, and someone like Norwegian at MoA is far better equipped than I in this regard.
IMO, it's healthy to be skeptical of Western government stats for any of the reasons you cite. However, the data I'm using is from non-governmental sources worldwide. And then there're my own observations of how our coastal climate in Oregon is becoming more like California's, which was something predicted over 30 years ago. Then there're the changes to the ocean's ecosystem I also see. Given the entities that control Western governments, they'll use and distort anything if it promotes their interests.
Well said. As we're seeing, the issue is being used as a tool by the Money Power so the focus doesn't shift to it/them. And the Money Power has lots of moola to employ vast armies of obfuscators on any chosen issue. That's why my focus on the Money Power.
> markets will remain markets and perform their economic function, but their purpose is to serve humanity first
Much of the conventional criticism of socialism is that everything is supposedly planned and there are no markets as such. Obviously this is nonsense; the key insight here is that markets are human constructs (not natural phenomenon) and needs to be managed as such. A century or so of libertarian ideology has blinded so many people to this fact.
Thanks for your comment about the nature of markets. There're a few Natural human constructs where their origins are attempted to be hidden and made to seem in a different manner that will be discussed in a New Path essay.
karl,
i mostly agree with you, but i think a part of the battle is to challenge some of the commentary too.. the way i saw it gt stroller was stating his view on the abuse of the data clearly and strongly.. now, i can agree this is the 'divide and conquer' strategy to add this into the mix, but if you want to get everyone on the same page - his insight into messing with the science and stats have to be addressed too... unfortunately no one on that thread has done it so far.. mind you i might have missed some commentary and have been away for a few hours...
When that first appeared, I called it out for what it is. Outraged reamed it a few times. Currently, I need to beware of my angst level lest I aggravate the time bomb within me; so, I'm not as pointed as I might otherwise be if I were 100%. That will change next week, provided I survive, which I'm confident I will.
On the actual topic of human induced climate change, I decided 18 months ago or maybe more that I wouldn't engage in that topic as I see it being used to distract from other more important issues that must be confronted first if we're to do anything meaningful about the climate issue. Eventually, I'll tackle that topic with an army of facts. The Russians accept the science because they see the literal facts. Yes, Putin was a skeptic but is now a confirmed believer, which is an odd way of putting it as it sounds like a discussion about religion--metaphysics: Is there a god? Thankfully the trolls haven't begun using that distractor.
thanks karl.. i understand and concur with your rationale here... the additional comments are helpful as well..
the other thing - they are 2 separate topics as i see it... but to overlap them is to add to the confusion..