Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[mspohr]

Almost 90% of new power in Europe from renewable sources in 2016

Almost 90% of new power in Europe from renewable sources in 2016

 

[u00mem9]

The original charge is garbage

The scientific community is outraged, and response has been swift. Zeke Hausfather, climate scientist and energy systems analyst at Berkeley Earth, who worked on providing independent verification of the data Rose attacks, writes at CarbonBrief:

What [Rose] fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.

... Rose’s claim that NOAA’s results “can never be verified” is patently incorrect, as we just published a paper independently verifying the most important part of NOAA’s results.

...Rose’s article presents a deeply misleading graph where he shows an arbitrary offset between NOAA’s data and the Hadley land/ocean dataset. This is an artifact of the use of different baselines...This comparison ends up being spurious, because each record uses a different baseline period to define their temperature anomaly.

Peter Thorne, climate scientist for the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, writes:

I have been involved in and am a co-author upon all relevant underlying papers to Karl et al., 2015.

The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work… John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.

Thank you for the insight. Would you agree with the accusation that there was a motivation to 'debunk' the prior conclusion that warming had slowed because of the potential for that data to send the 'wrong' message to the public and policy makers?

 

[mspohr]

Thank you for the insight. Would you agree with the accusation that there was a motivation to 'debunk' the prior conclusion that warming had slowed because of the potential for that data to send the 'wrong' message to the public and policy makers?

I believe that NOAA is composed of scientists, not politicians. I believe that they follow the science and don't try to make up stuff one way or the other.

 

[RichardC]

Thank you for the insight. Would you agree with the accusation that there was a motivation to 'debunk' the prior conclusion that warming had slowed because of the potential for that data to send the 'wrong' message to the public and policy makers?

The only "motivation" apparent in this question relates to the motivation of the fossil fuel industry to falsely create doubt about manmade climate change through false references to, for example, the "prior conclusion that warming had slowed" where there was in fact no such scientific finding, and certainly no scientific conclusion in this regard.

 

[nwdiver]

I found a very well written blog on AGW denial.

 

[hockeythug]

Full article at:
Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

Oh, the bastion of truth, Wikipedia, says so? Case closed then.

 

[JRP3]

Going with your logic, if the apparently "unreliable" Wikipedia calls DM unreliable, what does that say about the DM? Not to mention all the other evidence already provided.

 

[mspohr]

Thank you for the insight. Would you agree with the accusation that there was a motivation to 'debunk' the prior conclusion that warming had slowed because of the potential for that data to send the 'wrong' message to the public and policy makers?

Here's a more in-depth report on the NOAA "non scandal"
Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science

Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science | Dana Nuccitelli

 

[u00mem9]

Here's a more in-depth report on the NOAA "non scandal"
Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science

Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science | Dana Nuccitelli

Yeah, like I said, I disregard the way the media (right) pounces on any weakness...all the more reason to protect integrity at all costs IMO.

Did you read the nuclear winter/ Carl Sagan article? I understand why people who study the topic professionally would become concerned and thus want to influence policy. But I think that is a mistake and should be treated like any other conflict of interest.

Basically, many are frustrated that no matter how much evidence there is that the planet is warming, science does not say what should be done about it. I strongly suggest the scientific community should just stay out of policy / advocacy. The public needs to get back to seeing science as objective expertise. While I understand the desire to raise the call to action, it isn't worth the (potential) loss of credibility.

 

[ohmman]

If any US citizen is interested in the progress of H.R. 637 (effectively declassifying CO2 as a pollutant with regard to the EPA's jurisdiction), you can find the text of the bill here along with the bill's cosponsors. Check if your representative is a cosponsor, and let them know how you feel if so.

 

[mspohr]

If any US citizen is interested in the progress of H.R. 637 (effectively declassifying CO2 as a pollutant with regard to the EPA's jurisdiction), you can find the text of the bill here along with the bill's cosponsors. Check if your representative is a cosponsor, and let them know how you feel if so.

Thanks for this... My idiot representative (McClintock) is a cosponsor. Now I'll have something else to harass him about.

 

[JRP3]

Basically, many are frustrated that no matter how much evidence there is that the planet is warming, science does not say what should be done about it.

Not sure what you mean, the science pretty clearly says what should be done about it, i.e. the reduction of greenhouse gases from man made sources.

 

[SageBrush]

Basically, many are frustrated that no matter how much evidence there is that the planet is warming, science does not say what should be done about it

What should be done is a political choice.

 

[DragonWatch]

There you go, H R 637 is written by politicians and encouraged by the Village Idiots. I rest my case. Trying to avoid mentioning the third leg of demise.

Putting my money where my mouth is and buying an MX. Though thin I support positive organizations as much as I can and hope to keep my sanity in the process.

Hate is an addiction.

 

[jennifervanmet]

Whether the page is about motors or climate change?

 

[RichardC]

... Basically, many are frustrated that no matter how much evidence there is that the planet is warming, science does not say what should be done about it. I strongly suggest the scientific community should just stay out of policy / advocacy. The public needs to get back to seeing science as objective expertise. While I understand the desire to raise the call to action, it isn't worth the (potential) loss of credibility.

I disagree. The greatest failure of the scientific community has been (with a few notable exceptions) its failure to accurately, constantly and relentlessly communicate the facts about climate change. Once the science and the facts are understood, the solution is blazingly obvious, transition to renewable and other non-carbon energy sources, and stop burning fossil fuels. The science and scientific facts are not policy or advocacy, but are critical to the formation and implementation of sound policy. In this conversation, the voices of the scientists have largely been drowned out by alternative "facts" (such as the noise around the so-called Climategate scandal, the bogus assertions of a warming "pause", and other such errant nonsense).

Our previous government in Canada was infamous for its suppression of the voices of those raising concerns about climate change (as such voices brought into question the wisdom of that government's focus on fossil fuel extraction as a principal source of Canada's future economic prosperity) and the government effectively took the position that speech about climate science was political. Scientists cannot and should not be silenced by the fact that a clear understanding of the science has urgent policy implications (which we disregard at our extreme peril).

However, we need to follow the money in order to understand why climate change is politically controversial. Climate change is only a political issue due to the fact that the widespread and timely adoption of what are now readily available alternatives technologies is expected to reduce fossil fuel revenues by more than $US100 trillion (see Citigroup analysis in: https://ir.citi.com/E8%2B83ZXr1vd%2Fqyim0DizLrUxw2FvuAQ2jOlmkGzr4ffw4YJCK8s0q2W58AkV%2FypGoKD74zHfji8%3D). As a result the fossil fuel industry has literally 100 trillion reason$ to lie, and is known to be investing billions of dollars to spread doubt and disinformation about climate change, and the viability of renewable and alternative technologies, all with a view to deferring and avoiding, to the greatest extent possible, the loss of revenues that will result from the timely transition to a low carbon economy.

The fingerprints of the industry are clearly apparent in its support for advertising, lobbying, political campaign contributions, climate denial “think tanks”, “astroturf” organizations, denialist “trolls” and “sock puppets” on social media, and the distribution of disinformation to schools. The industry, through its proxies in the Congress, has relentlessly attacked (and continues to attack) both the integrity and validity of climate science, and of the integrity of individual climate scientists and their work. How many politicians have said "I am not a scientist, but ...", followed by a ridiculous statement about climate science which completely contradicts the scientific consensus, but closely aligns with the interests of the industry sponsors which are contributing countless millions of dollars to their campaigns.

Some of the common climate change disinformation strategies include:

• Falsely creating, in the mind of the public, doubt about the validity of climate science and the reality of and causes of climate change;
• Falsely depicting climate change as a political question (rather than scientific fact) and creating an artificial left / right divide as to the reality of climate change and the need for action to reduce GHG emissions;
• Falsely creating, in the mind of the public, impressions that action on climate change will not be effective, justified, fair, efficient, economically feasible, is not being taken elsewhere and is not reasonably required (all of which are demonstrably untrue);
• Creating unfounded fears in the mind of the public, that government action on climate change is intended to cause and will in fact directly cause harm to the members of the public; and
• Attacking individual climate scientists and those publicly calling for action on climate change.

In summary, climate scientists and those who support them, need to recognize the scale of the disinformation campaign that they face and to do more, rather than less, to advocate for the science (despite the fact that they will be attacked) and all of us need to stand up for science and evidence for democracy.

 

[mspohr]

What should be done is a political choice.

You are about to get run over by a car. Is it a political choice to decide what to do?

 

[SageBrush]

You are about to get run over by a car. Is it a political choice to decide what to do?

Of course.

What is going to happen if I stay planted and the car does not change path or slow down is science. My choice whether to get run over is not.

 

[u00mem9]

You are about to get run over by a car. Is it a political choice to decide what to do?

If extinction of the human race is the likely result, you point is valid. Does the science really predict extinction of the human race?

My understanding is that warming of several degrees over the course of a century and rise of sea levels that will change coastlines and eliminate some islands are the results predicted by the science.

That means scarcity of resources. How the country deals with that forecast is a policy question. It may strike you as callous, but if the situation threatens the US, the path of least resistance may be to prepare to defend our resources and potentially take resources from those who cannot defend their own. That may be a moral non-starter for your world view, but I'm sure you realize that is the type of strategic contemplation that our country (USA) has weighed for decades for a range of threats.

 

[mspohr]

Of course.

What is going to happen if I stay planted and the car does not change path or slow down is science. My choice whether to get run over is not.

So... would you stupidly stand there and get run over?