The Next President is...

[DosXX]

25 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Most educated conservatives don't deny climate change. 

Despite this, unfortunately the conservative political class do deny that humans are a significant factor in climate change. Tucker Carlson, PragerU, Charlie Kirk via TPUSA, and most republican congressmen now acknowledge it is real but claim it is a natural phenomenon that we have no hopes of controlling. 

Can't say whether it's just typical partisan bs in the modern culture war, oil lobbying power, or some combination of both, but it's an unfortunate reality. Best evidence of this is former Republican congressman Jim Bridenstine (who's done a fantastic job btw), acknowledging human caused climate change only after he became NASA administrator, ostensibly because he was freed from the political shackles that come with being a Republican congressman. Another interpretation is he sold out to the Deep State or needed to do so for political support for NASA, so I guess that will depend on your politics. 

Before I get smacked with the whataboutism, yes the Green New Deal was an alarmist and horribly written crapshoot, but one party has recently pulled us out of Paris Climate Accords and is pushing for deregulation of coal. 

Clean water and air fall more under environmentalist policy than climate change policy (though they are of course somewhat entangled), the global carbon footprint is the biggest issue at hand. What we need is a carbon tax and nuclear investment, both in building fission reactors and researching fusion. 

 

 

[brickhistory]

Ummm, if the Paris Accords were such a good thing, why didn't Obama submit it to the Senate as a legally binding agreement between the US and the other signatories?  If it was such a good thing, the Senate should've approved it, or those voting it down should've suffered at the next election.  It's how the rules are made and we play by those.  Anything, except DACA apparently, that one President does, another President can undo.  I also believe that we are more than meeting those expectations regarding emissions without having to pay literally billions to other countries.  Pretty good results for us, and a sad for those grifters.

Ummm, weren't we supposed to be underwater by now?  Or all the polar bears waterlogged by now?  Follow the money, who benefits from your carbon tax?  Who gets the money?

Ummm, weren't the "experts" calling for a new Ice Age about now back in the 1970s?

Ummm, how did the Earth get out of the various Ice Ages?  Waaaay back when the Earth was a literal iceball, how did it get past that?  How did the climate cool to get into those states anyway?

Climate change?  Yep, the climate changes.  Earth is gonna earth.  To think that it cares one iota about the current life forms is pretty arrogant.  

But a great payday for somebody if we want to be suckers and pay "the price" to save the earth.  

[17D_guy]

38 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Ummm, if the Paris Accords were such a good thing, why didn't Obama submit it to the Senate as a legally binding agreement between the US and the other signatories?  If it was such a good thing, the Senate should've approved it, or those voting it down should've suffered at the next election.  It's how the rules are made and we play by those.  Anything, except DACA apparently, that one President does, another President can undo.  I also believe that we are more than meeting those expectations regarding emissions without having to pay literally billions to other countries.  Pretty good results for us, and a sad for those grifters.

Ummm, weren't we supposed to be underwater by now?  Or all the polar bears waterlogged by now?  Follow the money, who benefits from your carbon tax?  Who gets the money?

Ummm, weren't the "experts" calling for a new Ice Age about now back in the 1970s?

Ummm, how did the Earth get out of the various Ice Ages?  Waaaay back when the Earth was a literal iceball, how did it get past that?  How did the climate cool to get into those states anyway?

Climate change?  Yep, the climate changes.  Earth is gonna earth.  To think that it cares one iota about the current life forms is pretty arrogant.  

But a great payday for somebody if we want to be suckers and pay "the price" to save the earth.  

 

Quote

Despite this, unfortunately the conservative political class do deny that humans are a significant factor in climate change.

Thanks for proving the point.

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Ummm, if the Paris Accords were such a good thing, why didn't Obama submit it to the Senate as a legally binding agreement between the US and the other signatories?  If it was such a good thing, the Senate should've approved it, or those voting it down should've suffered at the next election.  It's how the rules are made and we play by those.  Anything, except DACA apparently, that one President does, another President can undo.  I also believe that we are more than meeting those expectations regarding emissions without having to pay literally billions to other countries.  Pretty good results for us, and a sad for those grifters.

Ummm, weren't we supposed to be underwater by now?  Or all the polar bears waterlogged by now?  Follow the money, who benefits from your carbon tax?  Who gets the money?

Ummm, weren't the "experts" calling for a new Ice Age about now back in the 1970s?

Ummm, how did the Earth get out of the various Ice Ages?  Waaaay back when the Earth was a literal iceball, how did it get past that?  How did the climate cool to get into those states anyway?

Climate change?  Yep, the climate changes.  Earth is gonna earth.  To think that it cares one iota about the current life forms is pretty arrogant.  

But a great payday for somebody if we want to be suckers and pay "the price" to save the earth.  

Is it a treaty? Was he obligated to do so by the Constitution? Here, let’s have a look.

”The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2).”

Ah, guess that applies to treaties, not accords or agreements. Obama taught Constitutional Law at one of the best law schools in the U.S. (U of Chicago). I bet he knew the difference, just like the reason why the Iran nuke deal was an agreement. Which the irony is since it was an agreement, it allowed Trump to revoke with without the consent of the Senate.

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Kiloalpha said:

The Paris Agreement was a bad deal. Obama signed us up for $100 billion a year to a “green fund” that we didn’t control, mandated CO2 restrictions that would have killed jobs, and put us into an unaccountable system where there’s no real way to make an impact, even with that kind of money. The largest polluters are China and India by a massive margin. The Paris deal would have done nothing by contrast.

yep.

[SurelySerious]

23 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Is it a treaty? Was he obligated to do so by the Constitution? Here, let’s have a look.

”The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2).”

Ah, guess that applies to treaties, not accords or agreements. Obama taught Constitutional Law at one of the best law schools in the U.S. (U of Chicago). I bet he knew the difference, just like the reason why the Iran nuke deal was an agreement. Which the irony is since it was an agreement, it allowed Trump to revoke with without the consent of the Senate.

It did make him an expert at skirting the constitution by trying to use executive powers only on a bunch of things, somehow gambling his party would never be out of power. Short term strategy, just like all the poor AF leaders. 
 

Also made him an expert at using emotions to convince people climate correlation is the same thing as causation. Lots of people on board with that one. 

[Smokin]

4 hours ago, DosXX said:

Despite this, unfortunately the conservative political class do deny that humans are a significant factor in climate change.

"Deny" is a loaded term in political arguments as often when it is used, it is used in the same context as Holocaust Deniers, thus giving the moral upper hand to the party that places the label.  It is an irresponsible term to use for this reason as well as to say that I am "denying" something also implies that it has been proven.  People who make a positive claim in an argument are the ones responsible for proving it.  If I say Bigfoot exists and you say he doesn't, it is not your responsibility in the argument to search every square inch of the planet to prove he doesn't exist.  It's my responsibility to prove he exists.  As has been said above, the best possible argument is a loose correlation.  Instead, people who believe humans are the cause assume that it is true based on the "science" when it is absolutely not science.  The scientific method is the heart of science and it is impossible to apply to global warming.  Additionally, every attempt to apply just a part of the scientific method by making predictions based on observations has failed every time.  Remember Al Gore after Katrina when he said that Katrina was the start of a huge wave of super storms that will destroy our coasts over the next decade?  The next decade had almost no significant hurricanes in the US.  Same with professional scientists predicting the disappearance of glaciers in Glacier National Park.  There were signs in the park predicting the disappearance of the glaciers by 2020.  Those signs were quietly taken down last year and the glaciers are still there.  This isn't science, this is politics pretending to be science.

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

It did make him an expert at skirting the constitution by trying to use executive powers only on a bunch of things, somehow gambling his party would never be out of power. Short term strategy, just like all the poor AF leaders. 
 

Also made him an expert at using emotions to convince people climate correlation is the same thing as causation. Lots of people on board with that one. 

By skirting the Constitution, you mean “racing the rule book?” Show me a politician that doesn’t do that. It’s foolish to think that a party would “never be out of power.” Hell, Lindsay Graham just stepped over his dick recently by backtracking on this 2016 statement about nominating someone to a SCOTUS vacancy right before an presidential election. But he’s also a retired Guard O-6 JAG, which probably explains his two-face leadership skills.

 

[brickhistory]

5 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

 

Thanks for proving the point.

The implication is/was that "conservatives" doesn't recognize "facts" or conduct critical thinking.

So, besides the "othering," it is very possible to study observed phenomena and ask questions and reach different conclusions.

None of which have been answered.  Instead, it's "you are a climate denier and therefore unworthy."

Convenient strategy that doesn't seem to be working.

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, slackline said:

Again, let me say, this debate was ridiculous and both performed horribly, or probably failed to move the needle for anyone. Even Bernie Sanders, on Jimmy Kimmel, said it wasn’t a good night for America.

I am too lazy to go back and find it, but one of the Trump fans said they liked his answers on climate change. I let it go at the time because I wanted more people to answer, but I would like to hear some reasons now for that specific callout. What about “we have to do whatever it takes to have ‘immaculate air and water” makes any sense or squares with any actions/policies coming out of this administration? That’s basically what he said, I summarized. Not only do the actions of his administration scream the exact opposite, but those words don’t lay out anything in terms of policy/future actions.

So, are you just saying you’re happy with his answers because you feel climate change (something the DoD continues to list as one of the biggest threats to National Security) isn’t real, or did I miss something more specific when the two old guys were yelling at each other. Maybe Chris Wallace or Joe Biden spoke over him...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

For decades the government pushed the notion that, to be healthy and slim, we needed to avoid fat and intake carbs. Decades and an entire epidemic of obesity before we are finally starting, only now, to realize how wrong they were. 

 

Clean air ≠ Carbon dioxide reduction. The science of climate change, and all the incredibly complex measurements, studies, and theories about the effects, boils down to a single theory. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas of small impact, but it increases the major greenhouse gas (water vapor) such that we are seeing and will continue to see a temperature runaway directly caused by humans increasing the CO2. 

There is all sorts of research showing that the Earth is warming. Granted a lot of that research is not nearly as concrete as the narrative would have you believe. Take a look at the satellite data and compare it to the theory. Digging into the various generations of temperature records and seeing how lopsided the adjustments are is another eye-opening chore.

 

But even if you take the historical temperature data, as presented by the proponents of the theory at face value, the most critical component, that mankind has caused it, is dependent entirely on a theory of carbon dioxide that is not supported by the long-range historical data (ice ages during periods of much higher CO2), and is almost impossible to test on any sort of scale that would prove it one way or the other.

 

And on this shaky ground, the United States is supposed to reduce its carbon footprint in a manner that would utterly devastate our economy, and only have a single digit percent impact on the overall change in temperature. So even if you accept the temperature data at face value, and you accept the theory of carbon dioxide as an impactful greenhouse gas at face value, you also have to accept that the rest of the world, including the largest polluter (China), is going to follow our lead in a manner that will have an actual meaningful impact on the rate of warming.

 

That's a terrible bet, and the billions and trillions of dollars that we put towards this endeavor are much better spent on protecting forests, cleaning the plastic island out of the ocean, reducing known pollutants from being put into the atmosphere (like the smog plague of the 70s), defending endangered species, or any other number of measurable and worthwhile environmental endeavors.

 

That's the short version.

[DosXX]

5 hours ago, Smokin said:

"Deny" is a loaded term in political arguments as often when it is used, it is used in the same context as Holocaust Deniers, thus giving the moral upper hand to the party that places the label.  It is an irresponsible term to use for this reason as well as to say that I am "denying" something also implies that it has been proven.  People who make a positive claim in an argument are the ones responsible for proving it.  If I say Bigfoot exists and you say he doesn't, it is not your responsibility in the argument to search every square inch of the planet to prove he doesn't exist.  It's my responsibility to prove he exists.  

You're being pedantic, but if you wish to play the semantics game I am more than willing to call you a climate change skeptic. The implication in "denialism" is a significant deviation from the status quo as agreed upon by experts. If you tell me the Sun will rise tomorrow and I say it isn't, it would not be a stretch to call me a Sunrise denier, despite there being absurd but logically sound arguments I could make that challenge the sunrise. For example, I could claim you are assuming the invariability of the laws of physics in time, which have so far held true but are "unproven" to continue to the future. Science never claims the certainty of anything with 100%, there are always baked in assumptions that you could challenge ad nauseum. When science claims something is a fact, it is choosing not to consider breaks in underlying assumptions from extremely low probable events (such as a break in the immutability of the laws of modern physics). Bigfoot and climate change are a false equivalence in terms of probability of being truth given certain assumptions, as are the sun rising tomorrow and climate change, so I hope it's clear why your claim regarding responsibility of proof (while true in a general sense) does not apply to established scientific claims. It would not be useful to sit here and go through the science that "proves" humans are the primary factor in climate change, in the same way it wouldn't be for me to explain general relativity and stellar physics to "prove" that the Sun will rise tomorrow, so I encourage you to read the research beyond reactionary commentary on cherry picked predictive failures in previous decades. Again, you could always argue something hasn't been proved, but at some point science says we will accept the assumptions and claim it as being true, always being open to the possibility that it is falsified in the future. So no, science will never prove anything definitively, but human influence on climate change is past the point where it is debatable in a scientifically productive sense.

5 hours ago, Smokin said:

 As has been said above, the best possible argument is a loose correlation.  Instead, people who believe humans are the cause assume that it is true based on the "science" when it is absolutely not science.  The scientific method is the heart of science and it is impossible to apply to global warming.  Additionally, every attempt to apply just a part of the scientific method by making predictions based on observations has failed every time.  Remember Al Gore after Katrina when he said that Katrina was the start of a huge wave of super storms that will destroy our coasts over the next decade?  The next decade had almost no significant hurricanes in the US. 

Going back to the earlier example, the scientific method as taught in high school (which you seem to be referring to here) is also impossible to apply to definitively proving the rising of the Sun. The climate is a chaotic, but deterministic, system which is theoretically computable to perfect accuracy given enough information. At any point in the last 800,000 years you could have predicted a rise or fall in temperature following a rise/fall in C02 within 2 degrees 99% of the time with only this data. You could challenge this and say that it could be that the causal link is backwards and that it's temperature which affects C02 levels, so again I'll refer you to actually read the research to see how scientists isolate the causal link.

5 hours ago, Smokin said:

 This isn't science, this is politics pretending to be science.

The science is clear enough to make a statement on the primary influence of humans on climate change. The politics are what we choose to do about it. Maybe we are just a drop in the bucket and have no reason to do anything when China and India pollute so much more. Maybe the economic costs of the Paris Accords do not justify the future costs in damage. I am more than willing to engage with those arguments on a policy level, but fundamentally there is still a rejection of the notion that humans cause climate change which cannot be overlooked if we want to debate the politics of it.

 

 

 

 

[Lord Ratner]

5 hours ago, DosXX said:

. The climate is a chaotic, but deterministic, system which is theoretically computable to perfect accuracy given enough information. At any point in the last 800,000 years you could have predicted a rise or fall in temperature following a rise/fall in C02 within 2 degrees 99% of the time with only this data. You could challenge this and say that it could be that the causal link is backwards and that it's temperature which affects C02 levels, so again I'll refer you to actually read the research to see how scientists isolate the causal link.

The science is clear enough to make a statement on the primary influence of humans on climate change.

Charts can be funny like that.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

 

Even if I knew nothing about the theory, models, or underlying data, the overwhelming and religious-like commitment to the cause by a whole bunch of politicians, actors, other non-scientists is enough to make me skeptical. But I do know more, and dang near every time a supporter of the theory posts a chart, there's something the chart is misrepresenting.

 

[Smokin]

Skeptic is better and I don't think it is pedantic.  I think "denier" was very carefully and intentionally chosen.

The chart posted shows a correlation, but not causation, and is actual evidence against your thesis that man is the cause of global cooling/warming/climate change/whatever-it-is-this-week-so-that-we're-not-wrong.  If man were the chief cause of global climate change, it shouldn't have changed much before our industrial revolution.

My point with the scientific method is simply that climate change cannot be truly tested and that virtually all predictions have been wrong.  If I come up with a hypothesis , make a prediction, and that prediction does not come to pass, I have to re-evaluate either my data, methods, or my entire theory.  Instead, climate scientists make predictions, are proven wrong, and then pretend their prediction never happened or just push the dates a couple years down the road.  Yet they still want to cripple our economy and lifestyle to 'fix the problem'.

IF climate change is primarily man-made, which I'm not convinced, then technology advances got us into this problem and technology advances will get us out.  The way we advance is to continue a robust economy.  Look at England prior to electricity.  Moths were changing color because there was so much coal soot in the air.  It was an environmental nightmare.  Was it fixed by governmental regulations that you can't use your coal fired pot belly stove to cook and heat your house?  No, it was fixed by electricity not governmental regulations.  Like beer, a free capitalistic economy advancing technology is the cause of (if you are correct), and the solution to, our problems.

 

On a related note, correlation is not causation:  https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[Sim]

On 10/1/2020 at 10:26 PM, drewpey said:

And who are these actual proper journalists I should be following?  Who are these amazing journalists who have better investigative resources than the entire US government at the behest of the Senate that resulted in an intelligence report with said "fake news findings" written by republican senators?  Please I must know!

For you - rachel maddow given that you refuse to come out of your bubble. Keep thinking that Putin is running USA through POTUS and that behind every corner exists oppressed minority that must be saved. 

If you want to find an exit  - J Peterson is a good start. 

 

[Sim]

10 minutes ago, Smokin said:

Skeptic is better and I don't think it is pedantic.  I think "denier" was very carefully and intentionally chosen.

 

[lloyd christmas]

7 hours ago, DosXX said:

The climate is a chaotic, but deterministic, system which is theoretically computable to perfect accuracy given enough information. At any point in the last 800,000 years you could have predicted a rise or fall in temperature following a rise/fall in C02 within 2 degrees 99% of the time with only this data.

I remember speaking to climate scientists during non flying days while supporting Deep Freeze missions in Antarctica.  I wanted to go directly to the source and pick their brains.  I even visited a couple of their labs and offices to see exactly what they were doing down at McMurdo over the couple months that I was there.  One of the things they said that stuck out most to me was how inaccurate their historical data was in regards to temperature readings and CO2 levels.  Where on the planet were the readings taken?  What specific type of instrument was used to take the readings?  What time of the year were the readings taken?  How was the data recorded decades ago?  Who took the measurements and what are their motives?  Frequency and consistency were the biggest concerns.  These scientists were talking about data from just the last 5-7 decades...  

Edited October 3, 2020 by lloyd christmas

[Lord Ratner]

19 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

I remember speaking to climate scientists during non flying days while supporting Deep Freeze missions in Antarctica.  I wanted to go directly to the source and pick their brains.  I even visited a couple of their labs and offices to see exactly what they were doing down at McMurdo over the couple months that I was there.  One of the things they said that stuck out most to me was how inaccurate their historical data was in regards to temperature readings and CO2 levels.  Where on the planet were the readings taken?  What specific type of instrument was used to take the readings?  What time of the year were the readings taken?  How was the data recorded decades ago?  Who took the measurements and what are their motives?  These scientists were talking about data from just the last 5-7 decades...  

Exactly. The only people who are certain of this movement are the people with no direct connection to the science. It's just another team position to be certain about because the other team disagrees.

[dream big]

20 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

Reagan was the last charismatic leader America has had and that was a long time ago. I am in agreeance with you, I think it's an absolute disgrace that with all the great minds/people in this country, these are the two nutjobs we decided should represent American. I believe we're going to have our equivalent of the French Revolution in a not so future time. Wealth gap keeps widening, socialistic ideas becoming increasingly popular, racial tension... There is so much anarchy and unrest and Americans have become completely us vs them in the two party system. 

I 100% guarantee you everything will go back to normal after the election.  French Revolution? America is doing just fine.  Yeah socialist views are on the rise and racial tensions/riots are an issue but America will survive it.  It was built to survive this kind of crap.  I’d like to think we live in a country where the outcome of the President should not matter.  I don’t want one individual having that much power. 

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, Sim said:

For you - rachel maddow given that you refuse to come out of your bubble. Keep thinking that Putin is running USA through POTUS and that behind every corner exists oppressed minority that must be saved. 

If you want to find an exit  - J Peterson is a good start. 

Thank you for proving the point that most people cannot differentiate between actual journalism and entertainment.

[SurelySerious]

8 hours ago, DosXX said:

You're being pedantic, but if you wish to play the semantics game I am more than willing to call you a climate change skeptic. The implication in "denialism" is a significant deviation from the status quo as agreed upon by experts. If you tell me the Sun will rise tomorrow and I say it isn't, it would not be a stretch to call me a Sunrise denier, despite there being absurd but logically sound arguments I could make that challenge the sunrise. For example, I could claim you are assuming the invariability of the laws of physics in time, which have so far held true but are "unproven" to continue to the future. Science never claims the certainty of anything with 100%, there are always baked in assumptions that you could challenge ad nauseum. When science claims something is a fact, it is choosing not to consider breaks in underlying assumptions from extremely low probable events (such as a break in the immutability of the laws of modern physics). Bigfoot and climate change are a false equivalence in terms of probability of being truth given certain assumptions, as are the sun rising tomorrow and climate change, so I hope it's clear why your claim regarding responsibility of proof (while true in a general sense) does not apply to established scientific claims. It would not be useful to sit here and go through the science that "proves" humans are the primary factor in climate change, in the same way it wouldn't be for me to explain general relativity and stellar physics to "prove" that the Sun will rise tomorrow, so I encourage you to read the research beyond reactionary commentary on cherry picked predictive failures in previous decades. Again, you could always argue something hasn't been proved, but at some point science says we will accept the assumptions and claim it as being true, always being open to the possibility that it is falsified in the future. So no, science will never prove anything definitively, but human influence on climate change is past the point where it is debatable in a scientifically productive sense.

Going back to the earlier example, the scientific method as taught in high school (which you seem to be referring to here) is also impossible to apply to definitively proving the rising of the Sun. The climate is a chaotic, but deterministic, system which is theoretically computable to perfect accuracy given enough information. At any point in the last 800,000 years you could have predicted a rise or fall in temperature following a rise/fall in C02 within 2 degrees 99% of the time with only this data. You could challenge this and say that it could be that the causal link is backwards and that it's temperature which affects C02 levels, so again I'll refer you to actually read the research to see how scientists isolate the causal link.

The science is clear enough to make a statement on the primary influence of humans on climate change. The politics are what we choose to do about it. Maybe we are just a drop in the bucket and have no reason to do anything when China and India pollute so much more. Maybe the economic costs of the Paris Accords do not justify the future costs in damage. I am more than willing to engage with those arguments on a policy level, but fundamentally there is still a rejection of the notion that humans cause climate change which cannot be overlooked if we want to debate the politics of it.

 

 

 

 

You know how when you train facial recognition AI with only people of one race, it can only detect reliably the people of that same race? All of these climate models developed off of limited data have the same problem; it’s trained off of high fidelity data from only a period with industrial humans. The historical data back to 800,000 years is highly based off of assumptions...that fit one hypothesis. 
 

You’re not using science, you’re practicing religion. 

[ViperMan]

Or, you could be right-leaning like me and think that we are changing the climate, but still disavow the leftist attempts to over-regulate everything.

1. We are changing the climate.

2. We don't have to find or buy into the "political" solutions; we can (and probably will) find technical/engineering ones. In 90 minutes, more energy arrives on the planet than humans use in an entire year, from all sources.

The form this debate takes is a complete side-show to me. There is this trope on the right where any admission that humans are affecting the planet means we have to go along with the green new deal, or whatever - we don't. There's also this group on the left that is blind to the source of most of human progress - technology, not politics. I scoff both frames.

[FLEA]

29 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Or, you could be right-leaning like me and think that we are changing the climate, but still disavow the leftist attempts to over-regulate everything.

1. We are changing the climate.

2. We don't have to find or buy into the "political" solutions; we can (and probably will) find technical/engineering ones. In 90 minutes, more energy arrives on the planet than humans use in an entire year, from all sources.

The form this debate takes is a complete side-show to me. There is this trope on the right where any admission that humans are affecting the planet means we have to go along with the green new deal, or whatever - we don't. There's also this group on the left that is blind to the source of most of human progress - technology, not politics. I scoff both frames.

I'm going to borrow that. Thanks. 

[Sim]

On 10/1/2020 at 4:57 PM, drewpey said:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4911544/user-clip-sen-whitehouse-ratclife-letter

 

 

[DosXX]

12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Charts can be funny like that.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

Even if I knew nothing about the theory, models, or underlying data, the overwhelming and religious-like commitment to the cause by a whole bunch of politicians, actors, other non-scientists is enough to make me skeptical. But I do know more, and dang near every time a supporter of the theory posts a chart, there's something the chart is misrepresenting.

 

You're selectively ignoring the part where I discredit the chart I used using an example counterargument and specifically state to read the papers that explain how the causal link was isolated.  

18 hours ago, DosXX said:

You could challenge this and say that it could be that the causal link is backwards and that it's temperature which affects C02 levels, so again I'll refer you to actually read the research to see how scientists isolate the causal link.

Of course correlation does not equal causation, that's such an elementary argument to make and it's a strawman of what I'm actually saying. There is no way to practical way to prove to you in a forum why there is more than just a loose correlation between human activity and climate change. In medicine, one something passes the three sigma test (99.7%) the study will claim there was a statistically significant relationship found, whether it be lung cancer and smoking, drinking and blood pressure, etc. Despite the fact it is never a "proven" (in the sense of 100% certainty), doctors and scientists are of course always open to the 0.3% chance that there is no causal relationship or that the data can be explained otherwise. It's difficult to address what you linked because I'm not a climate change expert and it is very lengthy, but I'll certainly read it. The link between humans and climate change may not have three sigma certainty yet, but it is the conservative consensus is at least two sigma, which of course leaves the 5% possibility that there is no causal link. Since we mentioned models here as well, here a retrospective metastudy over the past 5 decades that analyzed the predictive capabilities of climate models.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2019GL085378

[Homestar]

When did I sign up for Stats 221? 🤔😃