climate change times are a changin'

[Foxton]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

So what is your plan?

Four more years!

 

[Slap Shot]

So what is your plan?

Let God sort it out.

 

[burd]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Let God sort it out.

Polluters in the hands of an angry God?

 

[Slap Shot]

Polluters in the hands of an angry God?

They don't think it matters, that our fate is in the hands of God and humans won't be around on Earth long enough to be impacted due to the coming rapture. That and they're selfish pr!cks that don't want to give up one penny.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Confessions of a computer model builder:

The climate debate is heating up again as business leaders, politicians and academics bombard us with the results of computer models that predict costly and dramatic changes in the years ahead. I can offer some insight into the use of computer models for public-policy debates, and a recommendation for the general public.

After earning a master's degree in environmental engineering in 1982, I spent most of the next 10 years building large-scale environmental computer models. My first job was as a consultant to the Environmental Protection Agency. I was hired to build a model to assess the impact of its Construction Grants Program, a nationwide effort in the 1970s and 1980s to upgrade sewer-treatment plants.

The computer model was huge—it analyzed every river, sewer treatment plant and drinking-water intake (the places in rivers where municipalities draw their water) in the country. I'll spare you the details, but the model showed huge gains from the program as water quality improved dramatically. By the late 1980s, however, any gains from upgrading sewer treatments would be offset by the additional pollution load coming from people who moved from on-site septic tanks to public sewers, which dump the waste into rivers. Basically the model said we had hit the point of diminishing returns.

When I presented the results to the EPA official in charge, he said that I should go back and "sharpen my pencil." I did. I reviewed assumptions, tweaked coefficients and recalibrated data. But when I reran everything the numbers didn't change much. At our next meeting he told me to run the numbers again.

After three iterations I finally blurted out, "What number are you looking for?" He didn't miss a beat: He told me that he needed to show $2 billion of benefits to get the program renewed. I finally turned enough knobs to get the answer he wanted, and everyone was happy.

Was the EPA official asking me to lie? I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he believed in the value of continuing the program. (Congress ended the grants in 1990.) He certainly didn't give any indications otherwise. I also assume he understood the inherent inaccuracies of these types of models. There are no exact values for the coefficients in models such as these. There are only ranges of potential values. By moving a bunch of these parameters to one side or the other you can usually get very different results, often (surprise) in line with your initial beliefs.

I realized that my work for the EPA wasn't that of a scientist, at least in the popular imagination of what a scientist does. It was more like that of a lawyer. My job, as a modeler, was to build the best case for my client's position. The opposition will build its best case for the counter argument and ultimately the truth should prevail.

If opponents don't like what I did with the coefficients, then they should challenge them. And during my decade as an environmental consultant, I was often hired to do just that to someone else's model. But there is no denying that anyone who makes a living building computer models likely does so for the cause of advocacy, not the search for truth.

Surely the scientific community wouldn't succumb to these pressures like us money-grabbing consultants. Aren't they laboring for knowledge instead of profit? If you believe that, boy do I have a computer model to sell you.

The academic community competes for grants, tenure and recognition; consultants compete for clients. And you should understand that the lines between academia and consultancy are very blurry as many professors moonlight as consultants, authors, talking heads, etc.

Let's be clear: I am not saying this is a bad thing. The legal system is adversarial and for the most part functions well. The same is true for science. So here is my advice: Those who are convinced that humans are drastically changing the climate for the worse and those who aren't should accept and welcome a vibrant, robust back-and-forth. Let each side make its best case and trust that the truth will emerge.

Those who do believe that humans are driving climate change retort that the science is "settled" and those who don't agree are "deniers" and "flat-earthers." Even the president mocks anyone who disagrees. But I have been doing this for a long time, and the one thing I have learned is how hard it is to convince people with a computer model. The vast majority of your audience will never, ever understand the math behind it. This does not mean people are dumb. They usually have great BS detectors, and when they see one side of a debate trying to shut down the other side, they will most likely assume it has something to hide, has the weaker argument, or both. [emphases added]

That last sentence to me is crucial: if you are trying to stifle debate, you give the indication that you are not confident that you can prevail in an open and honest debate.

What strikes me as very telling is the difference in the debate over CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions and the debate over CFC emissions and the ozone hole. The latter quickly won over skeptics, led to widespread consensus, and relatively rapid remedial action, which in itself reinforced the initial policy prescription: there was a growing ozone hole before worldwide action was taken, and a shrinking one after worldwide action was taken. Perhaps people who today sincerely believe that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions indeed are problematic could learn from that example.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

They don't think it matters, that our fate is in the hands of God and humans won't be around on Earth long enough to be impacted due to the coming rapture. That and they're selfish pr!cks that don't want to give up one penny.

Says the guy who usually defends rampant federal spending.

Your total lack of grasp is once again on display. I believe we should all be good stewards of the earth. My guess is I do a lot more of that than most of the nyucks that complain around here. Hey, look at your poster boy Al Gore and his mansions, airplanes, etc. Hypocrisy overfloweth.

 

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

The natural alignment in the US ought to be conservatives being the conservationists and liberals wanting to rape the earth for JERBS!!111!

I don't know how we screwed this one up.

(Meaning, of course, that everyone knows how we screwed this one up: the people who own the businesses that cause the most environmental damage are at the moment bribing the GOP slightly more than they are bribing the Dems.)

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

The natural alignment in the US ought to be conservatives being the conservationists and liberals wanting to rape the earth for JERBS!!111!

I don't know how we screwed this one up.

Must be all the garbage the food companies put in our food and we're all ADHD and all that.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

What strikes me as very telling is the difference in the debate over CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions and the debate over CFC emissions and the ozone hole. The latter quickly won over skeptics, led to widespread consensus, and relatively rapid remedial action, which in itself reinforced the initial policy prescription: there was a growing ozone hole before worldwide action was taken, and a shrinking one after worldwide action was taken. Perhaps people who today sincerely believe that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions indeed are problematic could learn from that example.

You seem to be assuming which side of this debate is causing it to be dysfunctional in comparison to the CFC debate. You haven't demonstrated that that is a valid assumption.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

You seem to be assuming which side of this debate is causing it to be dysfunctional in comparison to the CFC debate. You haven't demonstrated that that is a valid assumption.

um, okay, then you answer: which "side" is saying that it is "settled science" and that the other "side" should just shut up and accept it without any further debate?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

um, okay, then you answer: which "side" is saying that it is "settled science" and that the other "side" should just shut up and accept it without any further debate?

Because it is settled. The SCIENTIFIC community is in something like 99.7% agreement on the topic. You couldn't get 99.7% of people to agree on pizza toppings even if the two options were cheese and Ebola.

If you had said this wasn't "settled politics" you'd be 100% correct. But this is settled science.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Because it is settled. The SCIENTIFIC community is in something like 99.7% agreement on the topic. You couldn't get 99.7% of people to agree on pizza toppings even if the two options were cheese and Ebola.

If you had said this wasn't "settled politics" you'd be 100% correct. But this is settled science.

You might just want to take a closer look at those stats and where they came from. Could open your eyes a bit.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

You might just want to take a closer look at those stats and where they came from. Could open your eyes a bit.

You're going to have to elaborate.

(Obviously I pulled the 99.7% out of my *** but the exact number is in the extreme upper 90s.)

 

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

You're going to have to elaborate.

(Obviously I pulled the 99.7% out of my *** but the exact number is in the extreme upper 90s.)

Um, not quite. I don't have the reference material handy, but that 90% number comes from a generic question, "do you believe in climate change?". Well, duh! the evidence is clear in the geologic time line, we've had cycles of warming and ice ages going back millions of years. THAT's the only "consensus" that exists. the rest is propaganda.


It definitely is NOT: "do you believe (a) that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing, and also (b) that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere inevitably will lead to global warming, and (c) that these results are due solely to human activity?"

There is no clear-cut scientific consensus on the latter (three-part) question at all.

and then, beyond those questions, comes the policy prescription: "should we all stop using electricity and driving cars?" that is even more debateable, no?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Um, not quite. I don't have the reference material handy, but that 90% number comes from a generic question, "do you believe in climate change?". Well, duh! the evidence is clear in the geologic time line, we've had cycles of warming and ice ages going back millions of years. THAT's the only "consensus" that exists. the rest is propaganda.


It definitely is NOT: "do you believe (a) that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing, and also (b) that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere inevitably will lead to global warming, and (c) that these results are due solely to human activity?"

There is no clear-cut scientific consensus on the latter question at all.

No, that figure definitely refers to anthropogenic climate change.

http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg

 

[Foxton]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

No, that figure definitely refers to anthropogenic climate change.

http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg

A lying fish? Shocking.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

No, that figure definitely refers to anthropogenic climate change.

http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg

Where's the "box" smiley?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

and then, beyond those questions, comes the policy prescription: "should we all stop using electricity and driving cars?" that is even more debateable, no?

Debatable? No. Because again you are proposing two options that aren't even the actual options. Just a load of crap and completely dishonest.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

um, okay, then you answer: which "side" is saying that it is "settled science" and that the other "side" should just shut up and accept it without any further debate?

Oh I get it, if you focus solely on what side A is doing that you don't like, but completely ignore side B, then clearly, that leaves side A as the sole cause of the dysfunction. Excellent point sir.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Oh I get it, if you focus solely on what side A is doing that you don't like, but completely ignore side B, then clearly, that leaves side A as the sole cause of the dysfunction. Excellent point sir.

??? what makes you think only one "side" is exclusively the sole cause of all the dysfunction??? One "side" is saying "shut up and stop talking." that seems clear. the other "side" is saying, what, exactly??

are you denying that side A is saying "shut up and stop talking"?? or are you agreeing that it is, and are annoyed with me for noticing that while saying nothing about what the other side is doing which frustrates you??

FWIW, I'm not on one "side" or the other. I merely notice that neither side has very convincing arguments at this point. It's hard to sift through all the propaganda, name calling, and shouting, to find anyone who isn't either totally for or totally against.

It seems like people are starting with the conclusion they want first, and are then working backwards to figure out arguments that will support said conclusion.