Climate Change

[Buster Highmen]

Yeah, science evolves from one polemic that becomes a paradigm to the next depending on the interpretation of relevant data and consensus among experts.

But that's not an excuse to ignore the current paradigm.

Wonder is a very different thing from calling a paradigm a hoax.

Wondering is good and necessary to the scientific process but developing a polemic into a paradigm takes a lot of work and a consensus among people who care.

Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible - FZ

[Trackhead]

Yeah, science evolves from one polemic that becomes a paradigm to the next depending on the interpretation of relevant data and consensus among experts.

But that's not an excuse to ignore the current paradigm.

Wonder is a very different thing from calling a paradigm a hoax.

Wondering is good and necessary to the scientific process but developing a polemic into a paradigm takes a lot of work and a consensus among people who care.

Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible - FZ

Agreed, and I'm not advocating for skepticism that would politically or pervasively hinder the advance of cleaner technology.

[old goat]

It's real, today.

I think the eternal debate is how much of it is anthropogenic versus natural evolution. Like all things in "science", our understanding is not concrete or determined, but evolving. We see this every decade in healthcare, what we assume as beneficial one decade, is proven useless in the next.

One can, in the same breath, advocate for less carbon emissions, but also wonder and remain curious about how much is truly anthropogenic, without being a "climate denier".

Debate implies there are two reasonable sides to the argument. The vast majority of published scientists accept the theory that the current rise in global temperature is human caused based on 1) the rapidity of rise which is unprecedented in previous warm periods 2) the physics which finds the calculated CO2 emissions from human activity is enough to explain the increase in atmoshperic CO2 which is in turn enough to explain the rise in global temperature. No other explanation is necessary. (I would include increased emissions from increased wildfires to be a consequence of human activity--the suppression of wildfire in the past and the increase in fire from already increased temperatures. ) The "debate" is between science on the one side and those who have ulterior motives--greed, political power, attention--on the other. There is no reason to challenge anthropogenic global warming until science produces data that contradicts that theory. For now that science is lacking, although opinions are not. The only serious debate at this point is the rapidity of the rise in temps under various scenarios, whether reversal is possible, whether resources should be prioritized for reversal or for adaptation, etc.

To put it another way--not all opinions are equal.

[Trackhead]

Maybe I'm too entrenched in the flip flopping of medical science and I shouldn't project that cynicism of certainty to climate science? Which do you think is easier to interpret?

Dr. David Sackett (known to be a pioneer in evidence based medicine) once famously said:

"Half of what you’ll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half–so the most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own."

And:
"Confirmation bias and other forms of motivated cognition can fuel a self-reinforcing dynamic in which censorship and self-censorship discourage empirical challenges to prevailing conclusions, encouraging a false consensus that further discourages dissent."

[Trackhead]

Lets rabbit hole some more, just for fun. Science isn't perfect, and it is certainly influenced by academic ego. If nothing else, I find the procurement of evidence interesting.

"Surveys of US, UK, and Canadian academics have documented support for censorship (98). From 9 to 25% of academics and 43% of PhD students supported dismissal campaigns for scholars who report controversial findings, suggesting that dismissal campaigns may increase as current PhDs replace existing faculty. Many academics report willingness to discriminate against conservatives in hiring, promotions, grants, and publications, with the result that right-leaning academics self-censor more than left-leaning ones (40, 75, 99, 103)."

I know on TGR it is required to have a disclaimer, so ones discussion is not to be misinterpreted. "I believe in anthropogenic climate change".

[wendigo]

Lets rabbit hole some more, just for fun. Science isn't perfect, and it is certainly influenced by academic ego. If nothing else, I find the procurement of evidence interesting.

Interesting paper, I'd guess some of the reason it is in PNAS nexus and not PNAS is the data source, FIRE, which has ties to the Bradley Foundation, Koch Bros, and the State Policy Network - all right-wing agenda drivers. Doesn't mean the data or analysis are inherently incorrect, but there may be bias in the cases that FIRE takes on, which could conceivably be reflected in the conclusions. Background: I'm not an academic, though have published in PNAS.

[old goat]

Maybe I'm too entrenched in the flip flopping of medical science and I shouldn't project that cynicism of certainty to climate science? Which do you think is easier to interpret?

Dr. David Sackett (known to be a pioneer in evidence based medicine) once famously said:

"Half of what you’ll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half–so the most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own."

And:
"Confirmation bias and other forms of motivated cognition can fuel a self-reinforcing dynamic in which censorship and self-censorship discourage empirical challenges to prevailing conclusions, encouraging a false consensus that further discourages dissent."

I practiced medicine long enough to see standards of care come and go and come back again. I don't think that medicine and physical sciences are the same in that respect. For one thing the really smart kids go into sciences, the slower ones into medicine.

[SnowMachine]

#1. Can we all agree that Climate change is real and not a hoax?

Then we can discuss the causation.

Climate change has been real since before man walked the earth. Why would it be different now? You'd gave to be reasonably dense to think that humans have had no effect on things like greenhouse gas emissions.

My trouble with some of the "science" is not the science itself, but where the funding for the "science" comes from. This is on both sides of the argument.

Can we all agree that we need to not treat the earth like a garbage can?

[Mustonen]

[emoji638]][emoji640][emoji639]][emoji637][emoji639][emoji638][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]]

My trouble with some of the "science" is not the science itself, but where the funding for the "science" comes from. This is on both sides of the argument.

Of course. We all have run into well heeled climate science gajillionaires who made their millions by writing academic papers for the right investor. The fossil fuel industry doesn’t stand a chance, even if it had the time in between washing hapless sea birds with Dawn dish soap.

[Bunion 2020]

Can we all agree that we need to not treat the earth like a garbage can?

Only if it does not impact my quality of life.

I should be able to live in a 4K sq ft home with2 cars and a truck, a boat and a snowmobile and fly all over the world to see how the less well heeled live.

[Trackhead]

Interesting paper, I'd guess some of the reason it is in PNAS nexus and not PNAS is the data source, FIRE, which has ties to the Bradley Foundation, Koch Bros, and the State Policy Network - all right-wing agenda drivers. Doesn't mean the data or analysis are inherently incorrect, but there may be bias in the cases that FIRE takes on, which could conceivably be reflected in the conclusions. Background: I'm not an academic, though have published in PNAS.

Good points, appreciate the perspective. I feel the concepts of that paper are not isolated to that publisher, or author alone. Or is it a fringe opinion or alarmist opinion?

[Mofro261]

Good points, appreciate the perspective. I feel the concepts of that paper are not isolated to that publisher, or author alone. Or is it a fringe opinion or alarmist opinion?

It really is more common for Right wing think tanks/Conservatives to project persecution for expressing racist, sexist, or xenophobic ideas.

Research on scientific censorship has often been undertaken by scientists working for nonprofits rather than by scholars publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has tracked 486 cases of scholars targeted specifically for their pedagogy or scholarship (94) (i.e., excluding cases of speech made outside the contexts of teaching or research) between 2000 and June, 2023 (Fig. 1). The topic of race, especially comments about Black people, triggered the most calls for censorship.

The other thing of note is "censorship" as noted in the attached figure, is largely focused on the social sciences- History, Law, Polisci, Sociology; with Medicine, Biology, and Anthropology combined being less than 10% of the data, and the rest of the actual Physcial Sciences - Chemistry, Physics, Climate Sciences, even less still as to not make the chart.

Does academia censor people expressing racist/sexist/gender/or divisive views, and do Conservatives more align with people who express those views? Why yes and yes.

But I don't think this is restricted to Acedemia- expressing similar views in any work environment, and chances are that personwill likely be censored too.

[Trackhead]

There are plenty of other examples of research/publication bias that are readily searchable/discoverable outside of the single reference I cited.

Ultimately all research is funded by some organization, and by default, has a political affiliation if you follow the bread crumbs far enough.

There is indecision among climate researchers within their own publications. Any scientist understands humility and list limitations of studies/models/etc. There’s also a phenomenon of publishing studies with statistically significant positive vs negative findings. All these things move the needle in a way that may not reflect the entire picture.

My point isn’t to discredit the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, rather to ponder other influences of climate change and how much each is contributing.

If consensus and 100% certainty exists, why bother researching anymore if we’ve learned all we need to know. That would be silly.

[Buster Highmen]

There are plenty of other examples of research/publication bias that are readily searchable/discoverable outside of the single reference I cited.

Ultimately all research is funded by some organization, and by default, has a political affiliation if you follow the bread crumbs far enough.

There's a grain of truth to that in my experience when Reagan cut the NSF budget and I lost my funding at MIT/UMass Boston.

There is indecision among climate researchers within their own publications. Any scientist understands humility and list limitations of studies/models/etc. There’s also a phenomenon of publishing studies with statistically significant positive vs negative findings. All these things move the needle in a way that may not reflect the entire picture.

My point isn’t to discredit the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, rather to ponder other influences of climate change and how much each is contributing.

If consensus and 100% certainty exists, why bother researching anymore if we’ve learned all we need to know. That would be silly.

If this "certainty" is still an issue, my earlier point about the philosophy of science is completely lost.

[k2skier112]

There are plenty of other examples of research/publication bias that are readily searchable/discoverable outside of the single reference I cited.

Ultimately all research is funded by some organization, and by default, has a political affiliation if you follow the bread crumbs far enough.

There is indecision among climate researchers within their own publications. Any scientist understands humility and list limitations of studies/models/etc. There’s also a phenomenon of publishing studies with statistically significant positive vs negative findings. All these things move the needle in a way that may not reflect the entire picture.

My point isn’t to discredit the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, rather to ponder other influences of climate change and how much each is contributing.

If consensus and 100% certainty exists, why bother researching anymore if we’ve learned all we need to know. That would be silly.

Other influences now are feedback loops

Because scientists don't ever stop learning

[MultiVerse]

FWIW, Texas added 10,000 megawatts of solar in just the past two years. Solar is growing in Texas at ~55% per year. Solar power works well for supplying peak daily demand from air conditioners and is applying major downward pressure on peak power prices.

Also, UK's per capita CO2 emissions are now lower than they were in the 1850s. They just shut down their last coal fired power plant this week. UK was the place where the first one was built. Phasing out coal means Dick Van Dyke will no longer dance with all his pals on the soot covered roofs of Edwardian London, though

[Trackhead]

Pretty awesome ^^

[SnowMachine]

Only if it does not impact my quality of life.

I should be able to live in a 4K sq ft home with2 cars and a truck, a boat and a snowmobile and fly all over the world to see how the less well heeled live.

The house thing is fascinating. They just continue to get bigger. Why? Houses are going all electric around here. You know what also reduces their footprint? Fucking downsizing.

Don't get me started on the 6-10k sq/ft houses that sit empty 95% of the time, but are maintained at 60 degrees. It used to be that your "cabin" was a little place that you turned off heat and drained pipes when you left.

The older I get the more I want less (unless we're talking about skis ).

[Bunion 2020]

What I really find maddening is the lack of emphasis on making each and every new construction as energy efficient as possible and insulated to the gills.

What is scary is that most of the worlds population aspires to live like those in the west. Who can blame them, in many countries our poverty level would look pretty damn good.

Can this planet sustain that level of consumption or anything anywhere near that level? ETA Rhetorical question....

[MagnificentUnicorn]

^^ yes, the planet will find a way to kill us off


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Bunion 2020]

My thought as well. Fever is one way to deal with an infection.

[MultiVerse]

Solid-state battery electric cars are set to go on sale in European markets in 2025. The solid-state batteries will be less expensive, lighter, and charge faster. The cars will initially have a 447km (277 mile) range and charge to full in 12 minutes on a fast charger. After that, 600 miles with a 45 minute at home charge time by 2030.

[Core Shot]

#1. Can we all agree that Climate change is real and not a hoax?

Then we can discuss the causation.

Yep. Change always happens.

But we paved paradise to put up a parking lot.

The Amazon was razed. The us was trees from Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi.
Burning coal and gas? Dunno. But pavement is a heat sink. Gimme some shade.

[plugboots]

Yep. Change always happens.

But we paved paradise to put up a parking lot.

The Amazon was razed. The us was trees from Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi.
Burning coal and gas? Dunno. But pavement is a heat sink. Gimme some shade.

Pretty much. I mean to say humans are having no effect is ignorant and frankly kinda insane.

[abraham]

I'm interested in reading this book when it's available in English later this year: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/4641.../9780241718896

The author did an interview with the Decouple podcast that made it sound like a worthwhile history to read. During the interview he made the point that the only raw materials we've reduced our use of are Wool and Asbestos. The podcast isn't my favorite but I find there are some hard questions raised by it. I find it hard to think about energy effectively, and in glad there are other people who are more able to do it.

https://www.decouple.media/p/the-ene...ion-will-never

A radical new history of energy and humanity's insatiable need for resources that will change the way we talk about climate change


It has become habitual to think of our relationship with energy as one of transition: with wood superseded by coal, coal by oil, oil by nuclear and then at some future point all replaced by green sources. Jean-Baptiste Fressoz’s devastating but unnervingly entertaining book shows what an extraordinary delusion this is. Far from the industrial era passing through a series of transformations, each new phase has in practice remained almost wholly entangled with the previous one. Indeed the very idea of transition turns out to be untrue.

The author shares the same acute anxiety about the need for a green transition as the rest of us, but shows how, disastrously, our industrial history has in fact been based on symbiosis, with each major energy source feeding off the others. Using a fascinating array of examples, Fressoz describes how we have gorged on all forms of energy – with whole forests needed to prop up coal mines, coal remaining central to the creation of innumerable new products and oil still central to our lives. The world now burns more wood and coal than ever before.

This book reveals an uncomfortable truth: ‘transition’ was originally itself promoted by energy companies, not as a genuine plan, but as a means to put off any meaningful change. More and More and More forces its readers to understand the modern world in all its voracious reality, and the true nature of the challenges heading our way.