+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8452
Total Topics: 228
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)  (Read 1625 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #45 on: September 18, 2015, 02:33:03 pm »
Ashvin,
Here I continue to address your questions with a post from Eddie that I comment on.

Because of that 40 year time lag, it is simply impossible, even with drastic measures to stop the continued increase in deleterious effects of global warming for that length of time, even if we go 100% green today. IOW, we have to go to more than 100% green to actually address the baked in time lag. We have go to, say 130% or so, so as to rapidly return the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. This is certainly not limited just to CO2 reduction. Many other toxic products of industry must be eliminated somehow.

A lot of people missed the memo on this, but I've read it from a number of sources I trust.

Exactly. AS David Wasdell states in the following video, if you wish to actually ameliorate the existential threat from catastrophic climate change, you must use the projected climate condition of about 40 years from now as your target, not what is observed at present. Acting on the present guarantees failure due to the fact that the feedback mechanisms are moving faster than the policies to ameliorate climate change. This is politically very unpalatable. But it is the only approach with science behind it. IOW, if the IPCC predicted 470 ppm of CO2 and a 2 degree C increase by 2055, then drastic action to eliminate any target above that must be taken now.

Of course, that is not happening. Every day that isn't happening makes it more and more difficult to deal with.
 

David Wasdell, Director of the Meridian Programme, is a world-renowned expert in the dynamics of climate change. He is also a reviewer of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and the author of numerous papers and presentations on climate change and related topics.

Kevin Anderson, former Director of the Tyndall Centre (the UK's top academic institute researching climate change), said that a global society (like the one we have now) is not possible with our present level of technology in 4degree C or higher world. And that's where we are going, despite the IPCC figures all revolving about an alleged agreement (with no teeth, no enforcement and all voluntary carbon limits. LOL!) by the piggy countries s of taking measures to keep the planet  below 2 degrees C. Collapse is baked in, so to speak, thanks to government piecemeal incremental measures.

Back to David Wasdell, he clearly and calmly stated that the 30 or so positive feedback loops, if not addressed with absolute limits on carbon output, including even foregoing even biofuels, approximately 80% of life on Earth may die. If that isn't an existential threat, I don't know what is.


Ashvin asked,

What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?'

According to both the scientists I mentioned, we do not have the technology to stop this catastrophe at this time, once the runaway greenhouse positive feedback loops push us past a certain point. Some say we have passed it. Due to the 40 year bake and the paltry government measures being employed, it sure looks that way. Drastic measures to stop emitting CO2 might change that equation.

But it is not realistic to expect governments to engage in them. When large masses of people are dying and a public outcry is sounded, it will be about 40 years too late.

All that said, there are technofix types that claim we just have to put a pack of aerosols up there and cool the planet like volcanic eruptions have partially done in the past. There is evidence that our government has been doing just that since 2000. It doesn't seem to be working. Maybe it's just a conspiracy theory, but some very obvious man made 'cloud' grids have been videoed for some time. And, they are not jet contrails.

Another less messy and much more expensive approach is to block out a portion of the sunlight reaching earth with some giant aluminum vapor coated, 1 mil thick, polyester film a few thousand miles in diameter to cool the planet. But we have no way of knowing whether such a simple solution would not trigger some, even worse, unforeseen climate effect. It certainly is true that the massive sun shield qualifies in the 'any port in the N.T.H.E. storm' category.

But it would do nothing to eliminate the other industrial toxins, unrelated to CO2, that have upped the probability of getting cancer in our lives from 1 in 10 back in 1950 to 1 in 2 (for men) and 1 in 3 (for women) at present. And no, that isn't because we "live longer" ( check the social Security stats and you will find the longevity increase applies to the top 20% wage earners. The bottom 80% "longevity increase" looks like a rounding error.  :P). ; it's because we are subject to more pollutants in our food, air and water from birth than any humans in history. 

We have a plethora of severe problems and the rug the gooberment keeps trying to sweep them under is starting to look like Mount Everest.


-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?


Well, here's the situation, according to Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville  Please note that he is a very conservative scientist. But he makes it clear how serious the urgency is BECAUSE of the limitations of our technology and government reaction times.

The above graph is discussing the procedure to limit the damage to 2 degrees C. That was in 2013. He explained that the required carbon limits, if not enforced by 2020, will basically be impossible to implement. We are passing by 2015 with no end in site to the INCREASE in carbon pollution.

As he said, once the window is closed, it will remain closed. That is a scientist's way of stating an existential threat. He understands the technology. He understands what will happen when we cannot hope to stop the positive feedback mechanisms from overwhelming reforms. He understands that will head us to 4 degrees C or more. That is a dire threat to our species, and literally millions of other species we share this planet with.



Notice how the IPCC sea level rise predictions only fit the data at the extreme end. It is not logical to think that they aren't erring on the side of caution. They are. Therefore, only the most extreme scenarios they come up with can be considered 'in the ball park'.

Every time a report comes out, they have to admit that, yeah, the ice melted more than predicted and several other predictions were a bit on the, uh, conservative side. Each report published every 7 or 8 years gets a little more real. Consequently, it is prudent to assume that a worse than their worse case scenario is highly probable.

That is why I believe firmly that mankind faces an existential threat from Global Warming AND all the other industrial pollution factors degrading the biosphere.

That is why I focused initially on extinctions with Alan. When the extinction rate of species in our biosphere is 1,000 to 10,000 the normal background rate of the last ten thousand years (at least!), it's logical to then assume our species faces an existential threat.

This extinction rate cannot be neatly approached as the product of a single cause. Our society is lousy at dealing with multiple causes. It's like we are as bad as crows (they can't count above three).

But  there are thousands of toxic chemicals, radionuclides and aerosols, along with the CO2 damage that have joined together to drown us in our industrial effluents. CO2 pollution is what we should all agree on. As you can see from Alan's posts, even that is like pulling teeth.

Also, there are too many corporations stuck in the incremental measures approach to expect them to own up the their responsibility to future generations. I just posted an article on the good and the bad corporations. But the 'good" are STILL not at 100% renewable energy. And the bad ones are worse than ever. :emthdown:

It's hard to communicate this threat dispassionately. I do the best I can. We are in a world of trouble.

These are the web sites Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville recommends for reliable information. I hang around RealClimate regularly. I have posted articles from RealClimate here during the last year and have recommended it to all readers. They are the ones who are now looking very hard at the meltwater tunneling by supercritical water (liquid water several degrees below freezing due to massive glacier pressures lubricating glacier movement) beneath Greenland glaciers that is NOT addressed in any of the IPCC predictions that David Wasdell discussed.

They cover all the climate bases. RealClimate is staffed exclusively by climate scientists. 



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #46 on: June 17, 2016, 09:07:02 pm »
I just posted this at another forum called the Doomstead Diner.

Since it related to the above thread, I am reposting it here.  8)



Quote
My hope is RE will see the light someday and restore the Diner to it's original form.

I have seen the light.  The light told me that as long as there are people out there like Futilitist, MKing and Karpatok who will disrupt a board with their own brand of Napalm, they will be moderated.  End of Story.

RE





BINGO!

What too many people do not seem to be able to understand, in their zeal to claim freedom of speech is somehow abridged or curtailed by the admins here, is the fact that repetitious propaganda is not, and never should be, classified as a "contrarian" view.

When someone appears to be off their rocker, like Alan, then they need to muzzled to ensure freedom of speech in this type of forum. Alan went to my forum and, within a single day, descended into repetition, rants, goal post moving and deliberate bold faced denial of statements he had previously made.

I put up with that for about a week, warning him repeatedly to stop reposting. I began to delete repetitious posts and he went nuts trying to plaster his posts. So. I banned him for a year. I have better things to do than spar with a thread hogging one trick irrational pony.

Also, anyone. like GO, who considers this a platform for corner bar BSing just for fun should certainly not get upset about whether or not some other member of the peanut gallery is given da bidness.

If there was no real merit in the discussions here, I would NOT BE HERE. I resent any claim that we are just BSing here to pass the time of day.     

MKing is, as Eddie surmises, a hired gun. He may have been "outed" two years ago, but I was never in the info loop and I never found out his NAME. If you know his name, Eddie, and it's no secret, then why don't you just print it here? I doubt MKing would sue you for doing that. Feel free to PM me with MKing's name, since it is no secret.  8)

I agree that MKing is a hired gun. He is a hired gun for the fossil fuel industry in general and the frackers in particular. The term "hired gun", in regard to forum post activity, is a metaphor describing a serial liar peddling mendacious propaganda. How anybody can classify a person as a "hired gun", and still value his posts as a "contrarian view", defies basic logic and critical thinking, UNLESS one likes to stir up sh it.

I am not here to "stir up sh it". I think that is stupid OR perfidious. I understand some people enjoy that sort of thing because it is an excellent rhetorical tool in  sophist ammunition. They deliberately foster arguments to prevent the discussion of solutions to a problem. MKing often has approached a problem like climate change by claiming there isn't one with a devious back door pseudo scientific allegation that the science is "not settled".

He doesn't do that because he is crazy. He does that because he is a liar for hire. Tolerating that sort of thing is almost as irrational as tolerating Alan's rants.

As to Ashvin, he was right there in my forum cheering Alan on. Ashvin is an expert at sophistry. He does not now, or ever did, walk the Christian talk. I know that is irrelevant to many here in the light of Ashvin's high intelligence and rhetorical skills.

Well, integrity and honesty is far more important to me than intelligence or a quick wit.

Ashvin comes to any argument completely devoid of objectivity and thoroughly prepared to challenge any attempt by anyone to alter his preconceived world view on anything and anybody. He vociferously claims to be objective and quite willing to alter his views if you can "prove your point". But as soon he cannot counter any argument you make (and let me tell you, THAT is a TALL ORDER!), he either goes away or  pulls out his plethora of sophist rhetoric and fallacious debating techniques. He is relentless.

Bertrand Russell best described how Ashvin thinks.

Quote
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. 

If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way".-- Bertrand Russell

For Ashvin, the evidence is NEVER (publicly) overwhelming. When I tore apart his ridiculous claim that beef production was the main cause of greenhouse gas air pollution, he said I "didn't understand human psychology".

WTF!? I have to worry about ensuring some face saving clauses in my arguments to prevent the sin of  "offending" some high strung sophist with his nose so high in the air that he  drowns in a rainstorm?

RE is the only one that has ever pinned Ashvin to the wall in a debate. Ashvin isn't here because of THAT, not because of any alleged censorship by RE.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2016, 06:14:10 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: This is cross posted from another forum where Ashvin attempted to counter a post I made about what he had done here. As you can see in the thread above, Ashvin DID NOT bother to even address the September 18, 2105 post. It is blatantly obvious that he was only interested in supporting Alan's erroneous and disingenuous argument.

I think RE is correct in so far as my posts have not been censored or relegated to the Dungeon. At least I don't remember any instance of that.

Although it's not surprising for me to come back and find AG is descending into ever more delusion and paranoia.

As to Ashvin, he was right there in my forum cheering Alan on. Ashvin is an expert at sophistry. He does not now, or ever did, walk the Christian talk. I know that is irrelevant to many here in the light of Ashvin's high intelligence and rhetorical skills.

Well, integrity and honesty is far more important to me than intelligence or a quick wit.

Anyone can see that AG is quick to call me a brother in Christ when I agree with him, but call into question my Christian character when I show signs of being critical of his perspective. All it takes to draw AG's wrath and delusional accusations is to have a CRITICAL THINKING mindset when confronted with his theories, even if you are not really disagreeing with him. Even if you simply say you don't have enough information to make up your mind, he will accuse you of being a shill or dishonest rhetorician. This indicates a psychological defense mechanism that is clearly unhealthy and unproductive.

AG, you will never convince anyone of anything you are saying by being that much of a blowhard. As far as I remember, Alan was being entirely reasonable on your thread before you started in on your accusations and threats of censorship.

Quote
Ashvin comes to any argument completely devoid of objectivity and thoroughly prepared to challenge any attempt by anyone to alter his preconceived world view on anything and anybody. He vociferously claims to be objective and quite willing to alter his views if you can "prove your point". But as soon he cannot counter any argument you make (and let me tell you, THAT is a TALL ORDER!), he either goes away or  pulls out his plethora of sophist rhetoric and fallacious debating techniques. He is relentless.

Bertrand Russell best described how Ashvin thinks.

Quote
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. 

If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way".-- Bertrand Russell

For Ashvin, the evidence is NEVER (publicly) overwhelming. When I tore apart his ridiculous claim that beef production was the main cause of greenhouse gas air pollution, he said I "didn't understand human psychology".

Yeah, a lot of projection going on in that comment...

As for the meat production thing, WHY are you so damn reluctant to admit it a significant factor and talk about it? Is it because you ONLY want us to focus on the fossil fuel industry? I have always had the feeling that you want to subtly steer us towards your more extreme conspiracy theories about government coverups and ETs and alternative "free energy" sources. Although I have no idea when you became utterly convinced of such theories, to the point where anyone questions them you label them a complete ignoramus or a shill or a "hired gun".

Quote
RE is the only one that has ever pinned Ashvin to the wall in a debate. Ashvin isn't here because of THAT, not because of any alleged censorship by RE.

I see that even RE doesn't claim to ever pinning me against a wall. I haven't been here for a variety of reasons, not least of which I have been very busy relocating to NOVA. Also I'm not eager to get into any online back and forth about something other than philosophy or spirituality, because I just don't see the value in it, especially when there are people like you present.
 

I realized, FINALLY, where you are coming from in that last bit of cheerleading for Alan's totally biased views that you engaged in.

Your obtuse refusal to blame the police for all the brutality against African Americans before that made me question your objectivity (to put it mildly).

Your evidence free assumption that meat production produced more pollution than fossil fuels was one of the last straws. 

Your predictable ridicule of anyone that brings up solid evidence that the USA is an OLIGARCHY, not a republic or a democracy, is evidence of your bias and lack of objectivity, not critical thinking skills. You will, NO DOUBT, claim the following is "blowhard conspiracy theory stuff".  ::)


As I said BEFORE, you are relentless in your prideful zeal to peddle your world class doubletalk. You can word parse and carefully and methodically take apart absolutely anything anybody says with your well practiced, context and ethics free sophistic modus operandi until the cows come home, for all I care. I just happened to spot this here and I will answer ONCE. I will not waste any more time on grappling with your lawyer grab bag of sophist skills.

I will never, ever discuss Christianity with you again. You do not now, or ever did, have the remotest idea what Christianity is all about. You are a testament to that quote from the Bible about the "letter kills, but the Spirit gives life". YOU are ALL ABOUT interpreting the LETTER for your own self interest. The claim that the "Spirit gave YOU life" is now, and always has been, part of your TALK, but never part of your WALK.

Of COURSE, you will now rush to 2 Corinthians 3:6 and yammer some more sophistic baloney about how I am the one that doesn't "understand" the bible, coupled with some crocodile tears about how "sad" it is that any person can be so "ignorant" of the "truth" (in true Calvinist pseudo Christian form). Perhaps you will even promise to "pray for me". That is, after you passive aggressively question my mental health and drag out every post where I lauded your prose as "evidence" that any credibility for my views must be questioned because I am "wishy washy".

After all that, you will soberly counsel all, who are willing to listen, that my credibility has ALSO been severely compromised by these defamatory statements directed at you, a member in good standing of the "royal priesthood".

As I said before, WORDS are your THING. YOU are relentless in the defense, not of truth, but of your PRIDE. You are WISE and PRUDENT in your own eyes. Have a nice day.

 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #48 on: June 21, 2016, 05:50:45 pm »
Ashvin is a lawyer.  :P


Obviously, the above cartoonish representation of bats debating has nothing to do with bats. Bats, due to their fondness for fruit, do not engage in fruitless debates.  ;D


Lawyers NEVER give ANYONE the benefit of the doubt. Lawyers ALWAYS deny responsibility for deliberately attempting to position a debating opponent as one to be scorned, derided and dismissed by any intelligent, reasonable, prudent (etc. you get the idea  ;)) person.

But that's what they are trained to do. And they LIKE doing it.


And of course, they question the mental health of anyone that claims they are trying to game the discourse with bullshit. Don't you know, only a madman or an irrational zealot would question the integrity and credibility of a lawyer...   


George Orwell understood lawyerspeak quite well. 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #49 on: June 21, 2016, 07:03:04 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Az is short of Azozeo, a good man who has some beliefs that I do not agree with. I post this here because the pseudo Christian lawyer Ashvin is engaging in ridicule and dripping sarcasm that is totally unwarranted and highly unethical. The name "Ashvin" is not an internet handle, it's his real first name.  8)

Lawyers also know when someone is trying to avoid the substantive issues and distract from them because they have no arguments. Read the title of this thread, and then tell me how AZ has posted anything related to it, except his first statement that "there is only one set of rules - physics".

Also, how about showing a little intellectual honesty and backbone and telling your pal AZ that you completely disagree with his naturalist worldview. That is if you haven't already given up core Christian theology for ET conspiracy theories and Planet X annihilation any-day-now predictions.

LOL... was that this thread?  I don't read threads, as a rule I read messages in the "Most Recent 100" view, so I only respond to the parts of the thread that are quoted in a particular message.  Heck, I don't even know if this comment is directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway.

I don't completely disagree with AZ's naturalistic worldview, I only fundamentally disagree with it.  Kind of like with how when once you understand and accept General Relativity, you realize that Newtonian Mechanics isn't exactly true anyplace in the universe -- but it's close enough most of the time.  Like with evolution: I believe in the fact of macroevolution, but from my perspective it is the tool God uses to create new species.  My worldview is big enough to encompass both Jesus and little green men.


Jd,
I recommend you take a step back and analyze the nature of the post by learned counsel more closely. Since I am a "paranoid whacko" (and that post came RIGHT AFTER MY post), I suspect that it was directed at me in a clever goal post moving, attack the messenger type of fallacious debating technique, RATHER than addressing the issue of empathy deficit disordered sophistry.

To those who will claim, no doubt, that sophistry is not germane to the debate here, I beg to differ.

The POINT Az was trying to make was that he was rewarded with BILE. I explained, in my post, that attacking the validity of an opponent's allegations is what lawyers DO. But when they see that their methodology is being exposed, they then attack anyone trying to expose it by attempting to sidestep the attack the messenger bullshit they are engaging in with claims of the new poster's hypocrisy.

This is most clever. It steers the thread away from the Machiavellian dismissal of Az's discussion of Hopi prophesies (etc.) to an attempt to silence anyone, like me, who disagrees with some of Az's beliefs, but agrees with the importance of taking seriously the validity of the scholarship on Hopi prophesies and anything else Az says.

Any charge of using unethical debating sophistry can also be countered with sophistry. That is the "beauty" of being an accomplished goal post mover. The previous paragraph can be parsed into sections with witty remarks like "Projection here", "Paranoia over here", "hypersensitivity there", "I never said that" AND, "where do you get this stuff?". All those remarks are MORE attack the messenger type verbal guided missiles that continue to serve the main purpose of the sophist; that is, to avoid treating the opponent as a credible person, that whether they are right or wrong, must be given respect.

The sophist will vociferously deny the above charge and claim they consistently provide all debating opponents with respect, as is their Christian duty. They will ask for a record of examples of their alleged "lack of respect". They claim these charges are ridiculous. When a detailed and irrefutable list is not quickly produced, they accuse the accusers of being out to lunch.

If that doesn't work, a clever sophist, when faced with a group of people pointing out his sophistry, will claim he is being unfairly victimized and refuse to continue the discussion. He will pick up his marbles and go home because level verbal playing fields are not something sophists are fond of.

The legal "profession" was founded on sophistry (lawyers will vociferously deny this and claim it's all about providing the wonderful legal system we "enjoy today" that evolved from "humble beginnings"  ). The Sophists claimed that any side of an argument could be won, if argued "effectively" (regardless of whether it is true or not). Lawyers are about wining arguments.

Ashvin is a lawyer.


Obviously, the above cartoonish representation of bats debating has nothing to do with bats. Bats, due to their fondness for fruit, do not engage in fruitless debates.  ;D
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #50 on: June 23, 2016, 09:14:52 pm »

Survey Shows Strength of Climate Science

One of the first peer-reviewed surveys of scientists used to determine the level of consensus on human-made climate change was undertaken by Dennis Bran and Hans von Storch in 1996. They used a standard survey response format known as the “Likert Scale,” where respondents answer questions based on a scale of 1 to 7 to determine, for example, how confident they are that warming is happening or that it’s human-caused.

They’ve repeated the survey a few times since 1996, and have recently released the 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists, for 2015/2016. Bart Verheggen helpfully goes over the key consensus findings as well as a couple of issues with the survey.

Because of the Likert Scale response format, though, describing the findings in numbers isn’t as effective as just looking at the graphs of responses. In many cases, the responses are so lopsided that some very clear statements can be made.

We can see that, as science has progressed, the level of risk associated with climate change has increased as has what’s at stake. In contrast to folks like Judith Curry who play up uncertainty as an excuse for inaction, the majority of scientists think that since 1996, climate science uncertainty has dropped.

Meanwhile, if society were to listen to voices highlighting uncertainty, and fail to act because of them, the potential for catastrophe for some parts of the world is fairly great.


To the point of the GOP AGs suggesting that Gore and others could be held responsible for exaggerating climate risks, scientists clearly think sea level rise will be just as bad as we thought five years ago, if not worse. The same can be said for other negative impacts. Over the last five years, the urgency to act on climate change has grown.

As for the public, scientists clearly think they should be told to be worried as we are already starting to experience the impacts of climate change. For example, they agree that the frequency of extreme events is increasing, as well as the intensity of those events, and the probability that those extreme events occur. Scientists expect these extreme events to become more powerful, tropical storms to get more intense, and certainly not any less frequent. Heat waves over the last 20 years are growing more intense as well as more frequent.

Most importantly, an overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced that climate change poses a serious and dangerous threat to humanity, with only 2% responding that they’re not at all convinced. Again, with the Likert scale it’s a bit difficult to put simply. Assuming a 4 out of 7 is the midway point between “not at all” concerned and "very much" concerned, 8% of respondents fell between 1 and 3, 5.667% right in the middle at 4, and 85.74% between 5 and 7.

So, deniers claiming the science is still too uncertain to take action or that the public shouldn’t be worried need to take heed of this survey (like they have in the past, if even just to spin it) and accept that they’re a fringe minority at odds with an overwhelming consensus. That’s the facts, whether they Likert or not.

https://ourchangingclimat...ensus-on-human-causation/

Agelbert NOTE: SAMPLE of DIRECT QUOTES from a fellow named Alan that Ashvin found "reasonable":

Quote
I don't know enough about the climate issue. But I've been reading about it sporadically for 25+ years, and from everything I can gather, the scientists doing the analyses and projections are quite fallible, do not necessarily understand with such certainty the things they claim to understand, and cannot, in the end, be taken quite AS seriously as you seem to be taking them.

Quote
The environmental harm of something must be weighed against benefits or desirable effects.

Quote
the Doom overreactions and the propaganda spewing are two sides of a counterfeit coin. Neither one reflect reality and are counter-productive to real progress.

All the above represent denier methods of temporizing, creating false equivalences and ignoring the FACT that dirty energy ENVIRONMENTAL HARM is greater that the alleged benefits.

Alan brought up a lot of the other denier happy talk about "greening the planet with more CO2" (which I countered and he ignored) while he refused to even consider the danger the sixth mass extinction represents to humanity and the biosphere as a cause for rejection of incremental reforms in favor of the drastic government funded action climate scientists advocate.

In short, both Alan and Ashvin are world class foot draggers that ridicule, disdain and disparage the action recommended by 97% of climate scientists as "extremist".

IOW, from Alan or Ashvin, do not expect intellectual honesty. What you can expect is  verbal goal post moving and a barrage of ridicule, derision and defamatory 'attack the messenger' type invective, along with continuous mendacity filled attempts to undermine the seriousness of the validity of the climate change threat. 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Darwin by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 10:35:03 pm

Member Interesting, Hair Raising, Humorous or Otherwise Unusual Experiences by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 10:31:31 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 07:38:20 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 06:19:32 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 04:30:23 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:49:23 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:29:07 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 05:05:03 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 02:51:20 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 01:35:42 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial