Climate change and human responsibility

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Throughout modern history, scientists have been correct a hell of a lot more often than they've been wrong. It's time to get a move on with taking bold action on climate change, and stop clinging to this idea that "maybe they're wrong". Even if they are somehow wrong, what harm will it do to stop spewing mass amounts of toxic fumes into the atmosphere, and instead get our energy from clean sources?

The harm would be considerable. Billions in the developing world are starving for energy, and to severely hinder their access to it is not something to simply brush aside. There's this notion that I have seen brought forth by the "act now" crowd that states if you are right about climate change, then you have saved the planet, but if you are wrong, well then it's not really a big deal. This is just simply ignorant, and if you seriously can't see the harm that would be caused, then you most certainly shouldn't be rushing to action.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by photon

Right and wrong are also poor terms to describe the state of science over time, since they are absolute terms, when the correctness is usually fuzzier.

And in order for a new theory to be "right" and the old one to be "wrong", the new theory has to be able to explain ALL the phenomenon that the old one did....

I agree with the above wholeheartedly. So, why not let the scientists debate this in a civilized manner without political interventions, without threats of institutional ostracizing and boycott and, most importantly, without media mob? The information posted by The Fonz is not Facebook crap; it is really happening to scientists that dare to be critical.

I was absolutely shocked to see that 67% of the respondents feel absolutely convinced about the primacy of human influence on climate change and only 5% feeling unsure (as most of us should feel) as an example of social media effect on minds. It is pretty obvious that none of the posters are climate scientists and they have very little comprehension of the subject other than the catchy report snippets they get from Google. Look at the immediate reactions to my post: I've been quickly labeled a "climate denier", whatever the f... that means (someone that doesn't believe in climate?); someone that doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather; and, generally, someone who just doesn't get it. That is a caricature of what's happening to the modern scientific debate, unfortunately.

[troutman]

https://www.cgdev.org/topics/climate-change

Climate change and development are closely intertwined. Poor people in developing countries will feel the impacts first and worst (and already are) because of vulnerable geography and lesser ability to cope with damage from severe weather and rising sea levels. In short, climate change will be awful for everyone but catastrophic for the poor.

Historically, the responsibility for climate change, though, rested with the rich countries that emitted greenhouse gases unimpeded from the Industrial Revolution on — and become rich by doing so. Now, some of the most quickly developing countries have become major emitter themselves just as all countries are compelled by the common good to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A major challenge of reaching a global deal on climate change was to find a way for poor countries to continue developing under the planetary carbon limits that rich countries have already pushed too far. That will involve scaling up finance to deploy clean technologies, to adapt to the effects of climate change, and to compensate countries that provide the global public good of reducing emissions, especially by reducing tropical deforestation.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I was absolutely shocked to see that 67% of the respondents feel absolutely convinced about the primacy of human influence on climate change and only 5% feeling unsure (as most of us should feel) as an example of social media effect on minds.

So should we extract this to virtually everything? I'm not a physicist, but I am confident that gravity exists. I'm not an immunologist but I'm confident that vaccines work and don't cause autism.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So should we extract this to virtually everything? I'm not a physicist, but I am confident that gravity exists. I'm not an immunologist but I'm confident that vaccines work and don't cause autism.

Who are you, btw, rubecube?

I am a professional engineer with master's in water resources and hydrology. I've worked on numerous flood and stormwater management projects all over the world. I also have an MBA. So, I can honestly say that I do have a general comprehension of significant weather events, as well as scientific analysis and data. Yet, I am not an expert and after reviewing some of the climate change debate information available on the Internet, I see enough confusion and controversy to make any conclusions or take any position regarding the primary cause of recent climate change. I am unsure about it.

That doesn't mean that I support using chorofluorocarbons, which we do know cause harm to the ozone layer. That also doesn't mean I support the mankind doing nothing to help mitigate climate change. I just don't like the rhetoric.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Who are you, btw, rubecube?

I am a professional engineer with master's in water resources and hydrology. I've worked on numerous flood and stormwater management projects all over the world. I also have an MBA. So, I can honestly say that I do have a general comprehension of significant weather events, as well as scientific analysis and data. Yet, I am not an expert and after reviewing some of the climate change debate information available on the Internet, I see enough confusion and controversy to make any conclusions or take any position regarding the primary cause of recent climate change. I am unsure about it.

I think this is sort of the point though. You have public-facing agencies, etc., such as NASA and the IPCC, who have been abundantly clear on what they believe is the main driver of global warming. I would assume these agencies have people working for them who are experts in this particular field, and whose knowledge vastly outweighs my own and most of the general public's. Am I really to believe that they have not carefully considered the dissenting scientific opinions within their own community and that they haven't rigorously tested their own hypothesis extensively before going public with said hypothesis?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by rubecube

...Am I really to believe that they have not carefully considered the dissenting scientific opinions within their own community and that they haven't rigorously tested their own hypothesis extensively before going public with said hypothesis?

Exactly. You CHOOSE to believe the particular side of the debate based on the information fed to you. You CHOOSE to ignore or disbelieve the other side of the debate (mostly, because of the way it gets presented in social and mass-media). So, your conviction (position) is based on a pure belief in one side being right, not on any meaningful understanding of the issue. Politicians need these beliefs of general public to get more public support of their agenda.

Science should have nothing to do with beliefs. A lot of current climate change science is not based on fact, but on hypothesis supported by observational, archaeological and statistical factual evidence of changes to temperatures, weather events and oceanic levels, some of which could be attributed to human activities. It may be right, or part-right, or a small part-right, or wrong. There is plenty of proof contradicting this hypothesis; however. Scientists should be making their hypothesis and other scientists should be able to challenge them freely and without fear of repercussions. The debate must continue.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

There is plenty of proof contradicting this hypothesis; however.

Proof? Links?

No, not plenty. And what little there is, is often poor quality or wholly debunked.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Exactly. You CHOOSE to believe the particular side of the debate based on the information fed to you. You CHOOSE to ignore or disbelieve the other side of the debate (mostly, because of the way it gets presented in social and mass-media). So, your conviction (position) is based on a pure belief in one side being right, not on any meaningful understanding of the issue. Politicians need these beliefs of general public to get more public support of their agenda.

Science should have nothing to do with beliefs. A lot of current climate change science is not based on fact, but on hypothesis supported by observational, archaeological and statistical factual evidence of changes to temperatures, weather events and oceanic levels, some of which could be attributed to human activities. It may be right, or part-right, or a small part-right, or wrong. There is plenty of proof contradicting this hypothesis; however. Scientists should be making their hypothesis and other scientists should be able to challenge them freely and without fear of repercussions. The debate must continue.

Actually no, I choose to believe one side of the debate because the process of inductive reasoning points to it being the most likely explanation. For me to believe that climate change isn't likely man-made, it would require me to additionally believe that the most prominent institutions and experts who are tasked with studying the subject matter are either grossly incompetent or actively attempting to deceive the public for their own personal gain. What evidence is there to suggest that either of those scenarios are true?

This doesn't mean I believe these institutions are infallible, and I am open to the possibility that they are wrong, but that possibility will continue to seem less likely to me until there is sufficient evidence which demonstrates otherwise.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by troutman

Proof? Links?..

Why though? You are a real estate lawyer. How deep do you wanna dive into the scientific proof and what would you be able to conclude from it, seriously? I have zero desire or interest to get into the scientific debate on a hockey off-topic forum. There is nothing constructive we would get from such a debate.

However; I do have a huge problem when the people that SHOULD be getting into this debate are threatened.

This is from Bengtsson’s letter of resignation:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting [sic] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting [sic] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

All normal, critical thinkers must be alarmed by this letter. What we see instead is cheering.

[corporatejay]

As someone with little to no science background, I just don't understand how they can control for all those variables

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

As someone with little to no science background, I just don't understand how they can control for all those variables

They can't. The below is the graphical results of a number of climate model simulation runs, where the only variable changed was:

With each simulation, the scientists modified the model's starting conditions ever so slightly by adjusting the global atmospheric temperature by less than one-trillionth of one degree, touching off a unique and chaotic chain of climate events.




https://news.ucar.edu/123108/40-eart...te-variability

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

As someone with little to no science background, I just don't understand how they can control for all those variables

I think it's a fair question. I also think it's one the IPCC probably asked itself at several points in its 31 years of existence.

[Fuzz]

The forward looking models are one of the main issues I have with climate change predictions. I just don't see how any computer simulation with that many variables, many of them unknown, can give any kind of realistic prediction 100 years from now.

[troutman]

In January 2018, CarbonBrief published a series about climate models which includes the following articles:

Q&A: How do climate models work?
This indepth article explains in detail how scientists use computers to understand our changing climate.

Timeline: The history of climate modelling
Scroll through 50 key moments in the development of climate models over the last almost 100 years.

In-depth: Scientists discuss how to improve climate models
Carbon Brief asked a range of climate scientists what they think the main priorities are for improving climate models over the coming decade.

How well have climate models projected global warming?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...global-warming

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by accord1999

They can't. The below is the graphical results of a number of climate model simulation runs, where the only variable changed was:

With each simulation, the scientists modified the model's starting conditions ever so slightly by adjusting the global atmospheric temperature by less than one-trillionth of one degree, touching off a unique and chaotic chain of climate events.

https://news.ucar.edu/123108/40-eart...te-variability

And yet the NCAR's position is that greenhouse gas emissions are a significant factor in climate change.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Exactly. You CHOOSE to believe the particular side of the debate based on the information fed to you. You CHOOSE to ignore or disbelieve the other side of the debate (mostly, because of the way it gets presented in social and mass-media). So, your conviction (position) is based on a pure belief in one side being right, not on any meaningful understanding of the issue. Politicians need these beliefs of general public to get more public support of their agenda.

Science should have nothing to do with beliefs. A lot of current climate change science is not based on fact, but on hypothesis supported by observational, archaeological and statistical factual evidence of changes to temperatures, weather events and oceanic levels, some of which could be attributed to human activities. It may be right, or part-right, or a small part-right, or wrong. There is plenty of proof contradicting this hypothesis; however. Scientists should be making their hypothesis and other scientists should be able to challenge them freely and without fear of repercussions. The debate must continue.

The simple reason - mostly justified but sometimes not - that “skeptics” are vilified is that most of the scientific doubt surrounding this issue has been produced in bad faith. As, I would argue, you are doing in this thread. If you could produce some links or facts for us...

The root cause of the backlash against scientists isn’t the angry mob itself, it’s the disingenuous effort put forth by industry to steer policy debates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...was-debatable/

Documents uncovered by journalists and activists over the past decade lay out a clear strategy: First, target media outlets to get them to report more on the “uncertainties” in climate science, and position industry-backed contrarian scientists as expert sources for media. Second, target conservatives with the message that climate change is a liberal hoax, and paint anyone who takes the issue seriously as “out of touch with reality.” In the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists. The Heartland Institute, which hosts an annual International Conference on Climate Change known as the leading climate skeptics conference, for example, routinely calls out media outlets (including The Washington Post) for showing “bias” in covering climate change when they either decline to quote a skeptic or question a skeptic’s credibility.

[snootchiebootchies]

I think many people believe the cause of climate change is man-made. Where all the heated rhetoric comes from is when the consequences of climate change are discussed. I agree it is often much easier for scientists to diagnose the cause than to provide a prognosis of future consequences, especially when there are so many variables and feedback loops in play. But I look at action on climate change as something akin to Pascal's Wager. Because the potential worst-case consequences are so disastrous for human beings, and action requires such little sacrifice in comparison, it seems like the correct wager is action.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies

I think many people believe the cause of climate change is man-made. Where all the heated rhetoric comes from is when the consequences of climate change are discussed. I agree it is often much easier for scientists to diagnose the cause than to provide a prognosis of future consequences, especially when there are so many variables and feedback loops in play. But I look at action on climate change as something akin to Pascal's Wager. Because the potential worst-case consequences are so disastrous for human beings, and action requires such little sacrifice in comparison, it seems like the correct wager is action.

Honest question for you since you think the sacrifices are so little: What exactly are the sacrifices that you have in mind?

[AltaGuy]

I'd just like to also point out that there has been extensive discussion recently on this site about how US industry has been successful in waging a disinformation campaign about Canadian pipelines and the oil sands.

That same US industry has been waging a disinformation campaign against "scientific consensus" for over thirty years. If you're wondering why it seems as if this isn't settled science, I'd start there.