A Place for Conservatives

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I am not a climate scientist, but there does exist a one stop website where those scientists who support the notion of human caused climate change do tackle the claims and objections of denialists, including the Heartland Institute, which is a formidable opponent of global warming. I look to that site to judge the denialist's claims. But, when I do, I do so as a non climate scientist, and can only do the best that I can do in understanding the arguments and the retorts. But, in the case of The Heartland Institute, I have no reason to trust them, but I've dug deep enough into their motivations, funding, etc., to feel that way.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

I'm biased. I believe the so-called 97%. And I say that even knowing a little about the history of science, and how change occurs in science. American archaeologists, for instance, ostracized anyone who thought there were people in the Americas before the Clovis hunters. In that case, the overwhelming majority opinion was quite wrong. Another example is 18th century scientists laughing at, and dismissing, uneducated peasants who claimed stones fell from the sky. That overwhelmingly majority opinion was wrong. We now know those stones as meteorites. I can certainly find examples from the history of science where scientists did not really act like dispassionate scientists. In retrospect.

So, there are plenty of examples where majority opinion suppressed and attacked what were considered outlier opinions. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science sometimes advances "one funeral at a time". The old guard dies off, the new guard triumphs.

For those young enough, I say live long and prosper, and I hope they will live long enough to see who is right, and who is wrong. I wish I had my own youth back, but I don't envy today's youth, either, if the "alarmists" are proven right.

That link you pointed out does not feel like a place that would tell me the truth. It feels like a place that, much like the Heartland Institute, gathers all of the info they possibly can on one side of the argument. But the thing I really liked about that Heartland article was that, especially in the first portion of the article, it asked logical questions about this issue. I'd love to see a climate expert address that article, line by line, in a scientific way. It makes no difference to me what positions the Heartland Institute might have backed in the past, or who is paying the salary of the person who asked the questions in that article. I want to see the answers. I am completely unimpressed by the crazed ravings of politicians and activists.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

A interesting recent piece in The Atlantic describing changing attitudes on the part of Americans regarding the climate change debate. At the same time, describing a general reluctance on the part of Americans where climate change and their wallets are concerned...

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...-believe-climate-change-polls-say-yes/580957/

"A surging number of Americans understand that climate change is happening and believe that it could harm their family and the country, according to a new poll from Yale and George Mason University.

But at the same time, Americans are not any more willing to pay money to fight climate change than they were three years ago, says another new poll, conducted by the Associated Press and the University of Chicago....."

I don't think that an unwillingness to pay these costs is a uniquely American trait. Have you noticed what's been going on in Paris every weekend for months now?

 

[Jazzta]

Have your ever heard the explanation that when it comes to healthcare (or any service really) you can create a system that should assure you of two of the following three items, but you cannot be assured of all three: universality, affordability, quality. The health care system we currently have in America is not doing a great job of assuring us of any of these, though for some people I think the quality is pretty high, and for those who fill their yearly deductible affordability is probably pretty good.

Of those three values the most important to me would be quality. Affordability is second in my mind because I'm a cold-hearted bastard who does not believe that health care is a right.

No need to be a cold-hearted bastard in this kind of matter. I don’t agree that you cannot be assured of all three values that you mentioned. There are plenty examples of countries with generalized health care systems that provide good quality. The big elephant in the room is all the money spent in foreign affairs that could be invested in other areas such as improving a health care system that is being held hostage by the big pharmaceutical companies and other private interests.

 

[Red]

I don't think that an unwillingness to pay these costs is a uniquely American trait. Have you noticed what's been going on in Paris every weekend for months now?

Absolutely. I assume, if the dire warnings are accurate, we'll just wait until we're really behind the eight ball. And by "we", I mean humans and their polities, not just Americans.
I'm a pessimist most of the time, a glass half empty kinda guy.

 

[Red]

I want to see the answers. I am completely unimpressed by the crazed ravings of politicians and activists.

Well, then stick to the scientific literature alone. I can't, at least not entirely. I require some kind of layman summary. I am not a climate scientist. Sure, I can make an effort at pulling myself up by my bootstraps and becoming a self taught climate scientist in the process, but of course good luck with that.

Are you a climate scientist? Do you think you could form an informed opinion if you did stick only to the scientific literature. Allowances made for it might run up a $$, since not all of it would be open access. But, I'll bet you depend in large part on summary pieces as well.

And, I believe that is where our( "our" in general, not you and I specifically, or only) world view comes into play. At least to some degree, the "human caused global warming" vs. "climate change hoax" division is part of the liberal/conservative division, which most think of as a political division, but which I think reflects a larger "world view" division, reflective of how we see the world( conservatives are from Mars, liberals are from Venus).

Be it the Heartland Institute or skepticalscience.com, both address the points the other raises in an effort to "win", and people themselves are aligned on "sides" after all. There's no getting around that. I don't spend my time reading climate skeptic articles, and I'll bet you don't spend your time reading climate change articles. I do spend time reading the latter, that's where I am aligned. Just read an article, it would likely be described as "alarmist" by the skeptics, regarding the unusual frequent rains, in Winter, in Greenland, and how that is not a good trend to be seeing where the Greenland ice cap is concerned.

As I noted earlier, I am well aware of earlier episodes of scientific "totalitarianism", including careers ruined by people who dared go up against the reigning paradigm in whatever science involved. So I am well aware I might as well be cautious here, with that knowledge in mind. Yet, I am who I am, and might as well just accept that and get on with it. It's as if human caused climate change asks of me to make a existential leap of faith. Or become a climate scientist and really see who's kidding who.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

No need to be a cold-hearted bastard in this kind of matter. I don’t agree that you cannot be assured of all three values that you mentioned. There are plenty examples of countries with generalized health care systems that provide good quality. The big elephant in the room is all the money spent in foreign affairs that could be invested in other areas such as improving a health care system that is being held hostage by the big pharmaceutical companies and other private interests.

Americans pay the lions share of the worldwide costs when it comes to things like pharmaceutical research. Other countries benefit greatly from this. If American drug prices were pushed down to Canadian levels then it's likely that research on new drugs would virtually stop. And even with that huge advantage for Canada, their quality is not comparable to America's. I have relatives who are Canadian citizens, but they are rich enough to afford American health care and they say it is far better, so that is what they do.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Absolutely. I assume, if the dire warnings are accurate, we'll just wait until we're really behind the eight ball. And by "we", I mean humans and their polities, not just Americans.
I'm a pessimist most of the time, a glass half empty kinda guy.

I'm a glass half full kind of guy. And when I look back at the 20 year old data that claimed we would be sweltering and our coastal cities flooded by now, and I notice that the same people are still making the same or larger claims 20 years down the road even though they have been so far off to date, I can't help but think that they are alarmists.

What is clear to me is that humans have put more CO2 into the air. What is not clear to me is that doing so will produce massive negative consequences. It's even possible that there will be many long-term positive consequences. Another thing that seems very clear is that the modeling is off by a huge margin.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Well, then stick to the scientific literature alone. I can't, at least not entirely. I require some kind of layman summary. I am not a climate scientist. Sure, I can make an effort at pulling myself up by my bootstraps and becoming a self taught climate scientist in the process, but of course good luck with that.

Are you a climate scientist? Do you think you could form an informed opinion if you did stick only to the scientific literature. Allowances made for it might run up a $$, since not all of it would be open access. But, I'll bet you depend in large part on summary pieces as well.

And, I believe that is where our( "our" in general, not you and I specifically) world view comes into play. At least to some degree, the "human caused global warming" vs. "climate change hoax" division is part of the liberal/conservative division, which most think of as a political division, but which I think reflects a larger "world view" division, reflective of how we see the world( conservatives are from Mars, liberals are from Venus).

Be it the Heartland Institute or skepticalscience.com, both address the points the other raises in an effort to "win", and people themselves are aligned on "sides" after all. There's no getting around that. I don't spend my time reading climate skeptic articles, and I'll bet you don't spend your time reading climate change articles. I do spend time reading the latter, that's where I am aligned. Just read an article, it would likely be described as "alarmist" by the skeptics, regarding the unusual frequent rains, in Winter, in Greenland, and how that is not a good trend to be seeing where the Greenland ice cap is concerned.

As I noted earlier, I am well aware of earlier episodes of scientific "totalitarianism", including careers ruined by people who dared go up against the reigning paradigm in whatever science involved. So I am well aware I might as well be cautious here, with that knowledge in mind. Yet, I am who I am, and might as well just accept that and get on with it. It's as if human caused climate change asks of me to make a existential leap of faith. Or become a climate scientist and really see who's kidding who.

Posts like this are why I have liked and respected you from day one. At times I think your views are too overwhelmed by the crisis media that you are most attracted to, but there are probably times when I tend to underestimate the level of crisis because of the media sources and opinions I'm most drawn to. Like you, I'm not committed enough to this subject to dedicate my life to understanding climate science. Unlike you I believe that scientists on both sides of this issue owe us readable answers to the questions asked in the Heartlands article. I have always loved scientific literature that was written for the general public (authors like Carl Sagan and David Attenborough). I wish that someone would write about climate change in a similar non-political way. Don't try to convince me of anything. Just lay out the case, piece by piece, with actual evidence. Explain to me why I should trust computer modeling that has been way off in the past. Help me understand why scientists are okay with normalizing data. In short, answer the questions that Heartland asked.

 

[Heathme]

I just wanted to thank everyone for the more civil discussions going on now. This is what I wanted from the beginning.

 

[Red]

But the thing I really liked about that Heartland article was that, especially in the first portion of the article, it asked logical questions about this issue

From the opening paragraphs of that article:

"Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy interests are in full outrage mode over news that President Trump intends to launch a Presidential Committee on Climate Science. He should do it now.

The PCCS would, at long last, review and question the “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies and investigations funded by them. The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.

No way! the climate alarmists rant. How dare you question our disaster claims? Our settled science?"
--------------------
Now, I regard that opening as disingenuous. The answer to this proposal to form such a committee, is not as the article puts it at all. The answer offered by climate scientists is that there already exists a venue for such debate and discussion. It's called peer review, and the scientific debate takes place, and has done so for decades, in peer review publications. That is the case in all the sciences.

I would submit that the President and "climate denialists" are simply setting up a venue where they can use the pretext of such a committee to promote their fossil fuel industry agenda. So I find myself in the position of thinking "who do they think they're kidding?" As I recall, Scott Pruitt was hot for this idea. It really befuddles me when "climate denialists" accuse 97% of climate scientists as engaged in a political game, when the denialists are transparently political and clearly engaged in a non-scientific agenda and end run around the practice in all sciences for generations where research publication, discussion, debate, and emergence of consensus is concerned.

 

[Red]

And when I look back at the 20 year old data that claimed we would be sweltering and our coastal cities flooded by now

While trying to find specific info on this statement, and apparently I have not found the right search terms yet, I came across this interesting read:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...h-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/

 

[fishonjazz]

I just wanted to thank everyone for the more civil discussions going on now. This is what I wanted from the beginning.

You're welcome

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app