Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 Next
Comments 9351 to 9400:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 11:47 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
A little time? For what?
Markpittsusa, if you really looked at the Lancet review, you would have known that there was plenty of public health experts among the authors, so why portray it as the opposite?
If you didn't look at the authorship, then again, why would you say that you were familiar with it enough to know about that particular point?
These are indeed legitimate questions.
-
Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
markpittsusa - Considering that 'corporations' weren't mentioned at all in the OP, and are not the subject of the discussion (rather, the subject is distorted claims against the Canadian ClimateData site), I would have to consider your comments on this thread to be entirely off topic as per the comments policies.
Moderators, please note.
-
nigelj at 08:53 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
markpittsusa @13
"(and then as Nigel suggests, you can ban me for making good points that go against your views.)'
Quit with shoving words in my mouth, and totally misrepresenting what I said.
----------------
markpittsusa @15
"It would be helpful to me (really) if you could tell me who you think were the professional economists who contributed to estimating economic losses in the Forth NCA report. (There are 177 references in that Part 14 of the report, so it's not obvious.)"
Find out yourself. Stop being lazy. You are making wild accusations that defy even simple commonsense. It's therefore incumbent on you to provide proof, not me.
Moderator Response:[DB] The onus is now on the user to whom you refer to either support his claims with link citations or to withdraw them. He will also not be allowed to continue to misrepresent others here.
-
michael sweet at 07:49 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #40, 2019
Mark Pitts USA,
Sorry I am late to the party.
Your argument that 100 trillion is too expensive to build out renewable energy completely leaves out the cost of fossil energy. It has been documented in hundreds of articles that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil energy. Why do you think coal plants continue to close? The choice is not between 100 trillion for renewable energy and free fossil fuels, the choice is 100 trillion for renewable energy and 150 trillion for fossil fuels. Are you seriously claiming fossil energy is free? (Sorry no references on my phone). Search articles on renewable energy here at SkS.
You claim to be cost conscious by choosing the more expensive option. In addition, fossil fuel energy will destroy a liveable climate. If we go with the cheaper renewable option we have a chance of preserving a livable climate. There is no downside to moving to renewable energy except fossil executives will not keep getting those big bonuses.
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:40 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
I did, Mark, and what I read is that you've incurred a heavy debt of claims which you now need to pay back.
How about taking a pause on making more unsupported assertions and instead focus on paying off your balance?
-
markpittsusa at 07:35 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Doug, please read my comment posted about 3 minutes before yours...
Moderator Response:[DB] Lacking link citations to support your claims, your assertions about the NCA4 are without merit and can safely be ignored.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site can be a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly make things up and misrepresent the words of others. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
markpittsusa at 07:33 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Nigel,
It would be helpful to me (really) if you could tell me who you think were the professional economists who contributed to estimating economic losses in the Forth NCA report. (There are 177 references in that Part 14 of the report, so it's not obvious.)
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:21 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Mark:
— Garbage In Garbage Out (aka your assumptions determine your conclusions)
— Correlation is Not Causation
— Hundreds of Articles That All Cite the Same Few Sources Do Not Constitute Hundreds of Independent FindingsHaving made those vague and hence unanswerable* claims, Mark, it's now incumbent on you to back all of them with specifics.
Or don't. Everything is information.
*"Unanswerable" comes in two main forms: unintelligible, or inarguable.
-
markpittsusa at 07:17 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Doug & Philippe & Nigel,
Your objections are understandable, but as my comment states, I need a little time to make my objections specific. I read the NCA report and related articles 9 months ago, and I don't remember many details.
I think most skeptical scientists would want to hear my specific scientific objections (and then as Nigel suggests, you can ban me for making good points that go against your views.)
-
markpittsusa at 07:03 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Doug & Philippe
Re: The Forth National Assessment, Vol II
Some things to consider:
First, it is impossible to easily see the non-sensical aspects of this report because it is basically a summary of hundreds of articles. So, as a skeptical scientist, you have to go to the underlying articles to see if they make sense.
Secondly, I am Not saying their analysis is wrong in the sense that they made up the data, or did the calculations wrong, or anything like that. But they are wrong in the senses of:
— Garbage In Garbage Out (aka your assumptions determine your conclusions)
— Correlation is Not Causation
— Hundreds of Articles That All Cite the Same Few Sources Do Not Constitute Hundreds of Independent FindingsThirdly, many of the “scientific predictions” that were reported in the popular and social media concerning this report were the worst case (usually 2 standard deviation) scenarios. This is a big deal since much of what is said to be “science,” is not what scientists are predicting at all.
Forth, we have to trust the experts. And we can’t pick and choose which experts to believe, right? The Forth NCA report ignores the economic loss estimates of the recent Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus (mentioned 2 times) but instead relies heavily on the work those trained in climate science/ sustainability instead of economics (particularly the work of S. Hsiang, mentioned 33 times). If career bureaucrats choose to ignore the economic experts when making economic estimates, is the result science, or politics?
[I will address specific scientific problems in the Forth NCA report in a later post.]
-
Philippe Chantreau at 06:53 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Markpittsusa, you said exactly this:
" It is climate specialists, not public health officials, making the most predictions."
And then this:
"I am basing this opinion on my familiarity with the big IPCC report from the end of last year, the Forth National Climate Assessment (for impacts on the US), and the influential Lancet report on health problems related to climate change - all from about the end of last year.]"
Looking at Lancet report shows that numerous authors are public health specialists. This has nothing to do with authority at all. It simply shows that you either did not read the report or that you intentionally mispreresented the pool of authors. That was the only scope of my post. I made no argument on the usefulness or authority of experts, you did.
I find it very intersting that your initial argument was that the concerning information did not come from experts, and then when it is shown that it actually does, you turn around to suggest that expertise does not confer authority.
-
nigelj at 06:21 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
markpittsusa@ 4
Your statements have been shown to be false by other people. I will make only one comment. You say "If you track down where the economic loss estimates are coming from, they are almost always made by climate scientists, not economists." And @8 he says "Have you questioned why few if any estimates by professional economists are included?"
In my experience this is completely false. He provides no evidence of these assertions, and his many other assertions. They are completely fact free empty assertions. markpittsusa is clearly sloganeering (and trolling) which is forbidden by moderation policy. Moderation policy requires he back his assertions by providing references to specific research papers or academic articles or online data bases and the like, and he has not. He never has. Therefore its sloganeering. Surely he needs a warning or things start to get deleted?
Here is a list of hundreds of journals dealing with environment and economics and with each authors background searchable and with many economists involved. That is a start and destroys the assertion that economists are not deeply involved in the climate issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_economics_journals
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:17 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Ultimately we take many things on authority, Mark, hanging our lives in the balance in so doing. I strap myself into a car and drive around with reasonable confidence that engineers who did finite element analysis to provide survivable space in the vehicle in the event of a collision were qualified for the work.
Have I become sufficiently expert as to have read and studied finite element analysis to the point that I could understand and describe in detail what's keeping me safer? If I were to pretend we as a culture were ignorant of finite element engineering analysis because I personally don't understand it, would that behoove me? No, obviously not in both cases. In reality it's a plain fact that finite element analysis makes me safer despite me knowing not much about it.
"Argument by authority" is a handy rhetorical tactic but doesn't pertain to the real world, doesn't function successfully as a means of dismissing everything we as a culture understand..
In the real world, we have to make decisions based on advice by specialists who know things we don't.
What you are suggesting is a route to paralysis. Paralysis over synthetic doubt strangely enough is the same strategy that worked so successfully for decades to keep us frozen in a state of suspended animation for dealing with climate change.
I think we'd all be interested in specific, defensible objections to the reports you cite as having problems. You're going to have to demonstrate superior skills in a variety of domains. Vague won't really do.
-
markpittsusa at 03:28 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Doug & Philippe,
I will respond in detail concerning the economic losses part of the reports, but I need a little more time to reread the reports and related articles.
I don't think skeptical scientists take things on authority, as you seem to be doing.
Have you looked at the data yourselves? Have you read the academic articles concerning economic losses underlying what's in those reports? Have you questioned why few if any estimates by professional economists are included?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:11 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Markpittsusa says "It is climate specialists, not public health officials, making the most predictions." The he mentions the report from the Lancet.
This report linked below is from the Lancet. It has convenient popups to information about each author, there are around 65 of them. It includes where they work and the focus of their department. I started clicking and saw exactly the mix that one could hope for: climate and atmospheric sciences, public health, global health, epidemiology, air quality, energy, livestock, fisheries, tropical medicine, etc.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:48 PM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
nigelj@14,
Cap & Trade is a penalty program. So is a Carbon Tax, even if it is Carbon Fee and Rebate.
But my point is that the most correction resistant power players (not wanting the corrections of energy systems to happen) will probably need to be threatened with penalty. It appears that some of the recent changes of tune, more powerful people changing to be more supportive of actions to rapidly reduce fossil fuel use, could be the result of concerns about being penalized for not changing their attitudes and actions.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:41 PM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
mikepittsusa@12,
As examples of how misleading marketing is identified, this website has shared a massive number of uncovered cases of misleading information regarding climate science. This item is one of them.
And this website also links to Denial 101, a course to teach people the many ways that misleading marketing can be identified.
Basically, when there is available observations and information, any claim that does not adequately address the available information is misleading. And repeating an incorrect misleading claim after it has been exposed as misleading is Repeat Offending.
Though some people may disagree about what is misleading, when there is a better understanding available, an understanding that best explains all of the available information, trying to keep others from being aware of it being the best understanding at this time is misleading.
Science is tricky that way. All there ever is is the best understanding at this (meaning any) time. But science has a way of developing understandings that are sustainable even if some details are brought into clearer focus. An example is the way that molecules are still made up of atoms even though much more detailed understandings have developed.
-
Doug Bostrom at 10:54 AM on 20 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Half-facetiously I note that in nature, adaptation is driven entirely by death. :-)
The Fourth National Climate Assessment appeared in two volumes, the first being concerned with the physical science of climate change, the second focused on climate change effects on human culture.
Expert guidance for the two volumes was sourced from two distinct pools of disciplines, as one would expect.
If by "climate scientists" we mean people who are investigating physical science aspects of climate change, then no, it's not climate scientist who were making economic or health assessments for the NCA Volume II.
Meanwhile the insular nature of the process Mark alludes to isn't actually a real phenomenon. Here's how the construction of volume II is described via the horse's mouth, in the NCA front matter:
NCA4 Volume II was thoroughly reviewed by external experts and the general public, as well as the Federal Government (that is, the NCA4 Federal Steering Committee and several rounds of technical and policy review by the 13 federal agencies of the USGCRP). An expert external peer review of the whole report was performed by an ad hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).3 Additional information on the development of this assessment can be found in Appendix 1: Report Development Process.
For my part I'm not inclined to second-guess all of this; comparative to the talent pool encapsulated in the above process, I know nothing at all. Does anybody else here feel as though they could do a better job? And if so, specifically what do we have to offer?
Meanwhile a brief glance at this list of authors of the Lancet report Mark mentions reveals numerous public health experts, medical doctors etc. practicing in the field of public health.
Bruno Lemke, PhD
Lu Liang, PhD
Melissa Lott, PhD
Rachel Lowe, PhD
Maquins Odhiambo Sewe, PhD
Jaime Martinez-Urtaza
Prof Mark Maslin, PhD
Lucy McAllister, PhD
Prof Slava Jankin Mikhaylov, PhD
James Milner, PhD
Maziar Moradi-Lakeh, MD
Karyn Morrissey, PhD
Kris Murray, PhD
Maria Nilsson, PhD
Tara Neville, MSc
Tadj Oreszczyn, PhD
Fereidoon Owfi, PhD
Olivia Pearman, MEM
David Pencheon, BM
Steve Pye, MSc
Mahnaz Rabbaniha, PhD
Prof Elizabeth Robinson, PhD
Prof Joacim Rocklöv, PhD
Olivia Saxer, MA
Stefanie Schütte, PhD
Jan C Semenza, PhD
Joy Shumake-Guillemot, DrPH
Rebecca Steinbach, PhD
Meisam Tabatabaei, PhD
Julia Tomei, PhD
Joaquin Trinanes, PhD
Nicola Wheeler, MSc
Prof Paul Wilkinson, FRCP
Prof Peng Gong, PhD †
Prof Hugh Montgomery, MD †
Prof Anthony Costello, FMedSci †None of them are qualified to offer expert guidance? How likely is that?
-
markpittsusa at 08:55 AM on 20 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
I am also happy to get into the gory details as to why the popular economic loss estimates are mostly non-sense. (Short explanation: because they are based on the unrealistic assumption that people will not adapt to change.)
-
markpittsusa at 08:15 AM on 20 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
.Nigel - At least in terms of the economic social science, I believe you are dead wrong. And that’s the problem.
For example, there are few (if any?) economists involved in making the often repeated prediction that climate change will cost the US economy 10% by 2100. I know of no peer-reviewed article in an economic journal that shows this.
If you track down where the economic loss estimates are coming from, they are almost always made by climate scientists, not economists.
And concerning health issues, the situation is not much different. It is climate specialists, not public health officials, making the most predictions.
[I am basing this opinion on my familiarity with the big IPCC report from the end of last year, the Forth National Climate Assessment (for impacts on the US), and the influential Lancet report on health problems related to climate change - all from about the end of last year.]
Moderator Response:[PS] This discussion would greatly benefit from you backing your claims with references. As it is, this is tending to sloganeering. In particular, please:
1/ Reference the report(s) for economic losses being calculated by climate scientists. It would be particularly helpful if you showed where in the reports, you see estimates ignoring adaptation.
2/ Can you be specific about the predictions on health in the report that you think are authored by inappropriate authorities.
-
markpittsusa at 07:32 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
Doug & Nigel - I understand and agree. But that's not what most people understand "existential threat" to mean.
I think the tactic will backfire when Deniers point out that we're talking about scuttlefish, not human beings.
-
nigelj at 07:31 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
It depends how esistential threat is perceived. Denialists hear " exaggerated claim that humans would go extinct". Warmists hear " a wide scale threat to many forms of life and socioeconomic systems". DB makes a good point related to this.
But defintions are important to get right. People who use the term existential threat need to qualify it better, but the use of the term seems to be resonating with the public in general.
-
nigelj at 07:18 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
Markpittsusa, @17, yes I do hear that one. Its important to bear in mind climate change is an existential threat for many animal and plant species. That's what scientists subscribe to and theres plenty of published research on it.
But some environmental lobby lobby groups throw the term existential threat around in a loose fashion to imply humans are at risk of extinction. I'm a bit uncomfortable with this, as it's not really tenable to me. I haven't read a paper suggesting human extinction is literally possible. But it is not something scientists are promoting with the exception of G McPherson.
Of course there's evidence climate change could cause increased mortality in tropical regions.
But one should ask the question "has the term existential threat and the group extinction rebellion hurt efforts at mitigation"? Oddly enough it seems to it hasn't, and may be motivating mitigation.
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:17 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
Existential threat? It depends. For instance the geopolitical unit Bangladesh won't continue to exist as we know it, due to SLR.
-
nigelj at 07:02 AM on 20 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
markpittsusa @1, do bear in mind climate scientists are not themselves doing research in social and economic issues. Research papers that touch on impacts of the physical science on the social structure of communities, or which evaluate economic outcomes are usually multi disciplinary affairs with several authors expert in their own fields.
-
markpittsusa at 07:01 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
nigelj - Here is an exaggeration I see or hear 10 times a day:
"Climate change is an existential threat."
How many peer-reviewed scientific papers say that humanity is even remotely likely to cease to exist due to climate change?
-
nigelj at 06:47 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
markpittsusa, sorry for spelling your name wrong. Typo.
-
nigelj at 06:45 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
dmarkpittsusa "The problem in my opinion is that there is plenty of "willful ignorance" on both sides: On the one hand there is denial. On the other hand, extreme (i.e., scientically refuted) exaggeration."
I think the willful ignorance is mostly on the denialist side of things. I concede there is some exaggeration by a few warmist individuals but they are small in number. Guy McPherson a biologist claimed climate change could cause human extinction within a couple of decades (or something like that) , and a ridiculous website suggested temperatures could soar ten degrees within a decade but these are a very small minority of scientists and individuals. Still its annoying because it gives denialists ammunition.
I'm not sure what exaggeration you are referring to, but I would make the point that there is no evidence of exaggeration in any of the IPCC findings, and in fact plenty of hard evidence suggests the IPCC are overly conservative in their findings. Such information is easily enough googled.
The science is multifaceted and compelling and has therefore not surprisingly lead to a consensus. Claiming IPCC reports are exaggerated is therefore just opinion, and pretty uninformed opinion.
-
Doug Bostrom at 06:45 AM on 20 October 2019Tipping Points: Could the climate collapse?
I'll just offer that watching Fawlty Towers was not only squeamishly amusing but also informative for me in terms of identifying my own Basil characteristics. Indirection is sometimes quite helpful.
-
Doug Bostrom at 06:41 AM on 20 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
I'm not sure I understand how publishing regional model projections is "to move into the social sciences," Mark.
More it's the case that these projections most immediately affect decisions to be made around civil engineering and agronomy, as is visible in other papers we list. Social sciences come in as a knock-on effect of that. So, it seems climate scientists (those in the domain of physics) are a few steps removed from the sausage factory driven by their findings.
As to whether projections are off the mark, I'm not remotely qualified to say. Few of us are, with those few suited for a productive role in critique found in the role of reviewing papers for publications.
-
nigelj at 06:14 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
One Planet Only Forever @11, the problem with penalties and fines for C02 emissions is it would presumably require penalising various corporations who produce emissions and this will be a very hard sell politically because there will be huge corporate push back against parties trying to do this. Likewise for consistency I think you would have to penalise or fine ordinary people for their high carbon footprints, which would probably get huge political resistance.
I promise you any Party suggesting the idea of penalties or fines idea would plummet to near zero in the political polls, so such policies dont have much chance of being enacted into legislation or would just be cancelled by the next party elected. People have a huge psychological aversion to the ideas of fines or penalties.
I'm not saying the idea is philosophically wrong, just that its doesn't appear to be remotely viable in the real world. Carbon tax schemes or cap and trade look more poltically viable, and several countries have these. They help modify behaviour. Economics 101. They also have an element of pernalty in them, but its not so "in your face".
Of course we can penalise bad behaviour in other ways that are indirect. Shaming people and corporations, not voting for them, ostracising them, not using their products and services, etcetera.
-
markpittsusa at 05:34 AM on 20 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
The problem that I see is that when climate scientists move into the social sciences (economics, public health, etc.) their analysis is often very weak. So when they say "these things [actual effects on human beings] will happen" in your city/county/state, they are frequently going to be way off the mark. And of course those errors become valuable ammunition for deniers.
-
markpittsusa at 03:39 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
nigelj & Wol - The problem in my opinion is that there is plenty of "willful ignorance" on both sides: On the one hand there is denial. On the other hand, extreme (i.e., scientically refuted) exaggeration.
-
markpittsusa at 02:53 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
One Planet - Who gets to decide what is "misleading information?" (Give me that job, and I can rule the world.)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:11 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
nigelj and mike,
The first step in efforts to correct activity that is discovered to create negative impacts or risk of negative impacts is improved awareness and understanding that it needs to be changed or stopped.
If that fails to achieve the required correction, the next step is making it harder to get away with the unsustainable harmful behaviour (even if people claim that good things are being done because of the unsustainable harmful activity, none of that Good is sustainable)
If that step fails then penalties or fines are required.
And what really needs to be penalized is people who continue to try to spread and popularize misleading information that compromises the efforts to achieve the results through the 'First Step'.
We reached the stage of requiring penalties for bad climate action behaviour a couple of decades ago.
It appears that the winners and leaders will need to be penalized to get the required corrections, and maybe penalized for past actions). The longer that people can excuse bad behaviour by complaining that penalties are not helpful or are not justified the worse things will become.
-
nigelj at 10:47 AM on 19 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
WOL, some of the answer might be found here: wilful ignorance.
-
Wol at 09:02 AM on 19 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
Can anyone explain to me how denialists can, without apparent irony, state that no-one can know weather and climate data prior to around the late 1800s yet state with utter certainty how the MWP, various ices ages and the like were, hundreds to millions of years ago.
All of which data came from the same institutions and scientists!
-
nigelj at 08:53 AM on 19 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
markpittsusa @6, your fossil fuels versus car accidents analogy is menaingless because it compares oranges and apples Cars are not a problem, provided they are driven correctly and if not that is the drivers fault. Fossil fuel production is a problem because it is causing climate change, reflecting on both producers and consumers. But the way out is things like carbon taxes, or possibly cap and trade, or a "GND" those sorts of initiatives.
-
nigelj at 08:46 AM on 19 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
markpittsusa @6
Before we talk about solutions we have to identify who is doing the wrong thing, in order to figure out what the best solution is. In the climate issue this includes both corporations and individuals so its messy. I agree to the extent that an accusatory stance is not helpful eg: "You climate villain need to be cast into the eternal fire". But its hard to escape the fact that corporations and people are to "blame".
"If a handful of corporations are responsible for most global warming, then a handful of auto makers are responsible for tens of thousands of highway deaths. (So lets make the auto makers should pay.)"
I have never suggested corporations should pay some form of damages for climate negligence. This is obviously not the right way to approach things, although I wont be standing in the way of anyone who tries it out.
But corporations all have a responsibility to reduce their carbon footprint. A carbon tax would help push them and consumers to reduce emissions according to the IMF. The IMF seem to think its very practical. Did you read the link?
And you still haven't answered my question. What would you suggest be done?
-
markpittsusa at 07:23 AM on 19 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
nigelj. I appreciate your perspective, but I can't see how your comments negate my point. Aren't we are looking for solutions rather than looking for whom to blame?
Besides the practical problem of trying to make corporations pay, there is a logical problem as well: If a handful of corporations are responsible for most global warming, then a handful of auto makers are responsible for tens of thousands of highway deaths. (So lets make the auto makers should pay.)
-
nigelj at 07:13 AM on 19 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
markpittsusa @4 , heavens above, we should never blame either corporations or ordinary people for this climate mess. Instead we should tell them what they are doing is fine. Give everybody a green light to continue the same behaviour. (sarc)
What is your solution? Hold hands and sing Kumbya? Is it "more research is needed?" Statements that technology is the answer, ie stating the obvious? Begging corporations to do better? Just what is it?
This problem clearly can't be solved purely by individual initiative, because that clearly isn't working. The solutions might be uncomfortable for some, but will require something like a carbon tax and dividend scheme. Even the IMF is on board with that.
-
markpittsusa at 05:53 AM on 19 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
As a practical matter, bashing and blaming the corporations will never work. That's because corporations are overwhelmingly owned by ordinary people. Roughly speaking, 50% of the US stock market is in pension funds and retirement accounts. Roughly another 25% in individual accounts. And the remainder is in "other accounts," a very large part of which is "sovereign wealth funds," i.e., government owned funds that belong to all the citizens of the country.
-
markpittsusa at 05:44 AM on 19 October 2019Tipping Points: Could the climate collapse?
Scaddenp. Thanks. Exactly what I was looking for.
-
Joe Wiseman at 23:21 PM on 18 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
Now we need our elected "leaders" to start using the portal instead of catering to the corporate agendas of greed and influence.
-
nigelj at 18:03 PM on 18 October 2019Tipping Points: Could the climate collapse?
I find the video a bit short of detail and long on promoting Climate Adam. Perhaps it's because in getting old and grumpy. Perhaps the video targets young people quite well. But it's probably not going to be a hit with conservative leaning denialists.
But one way or the other, whats really needed is a more in depth discussion on tipping points because most people will want a couple of examples and an explanation. Scaddenps references look good and are valuable, but are the other extreme and very technical.
-
scaddenp at 12:13 PM on 18 October 2019Tipping Points: Could the climate collapse?
Matt, try this reference for a starting point (2636 citations) and the follow up reference. I am not that fond of the term "tipping point". This article points to what I think are problematic issues with its use.
-
nigelj at 12:04 PM on 18 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
"Are Blacklock's Reporter et al. honestly confused about the difference between weather and climate, and the complexities of climate computer modelling, or are they just trying to use that complexity to confuse their readers?"
Probably the later. These people obviously aren't morons, in the main. We are talking about deliberate ignorance. When your income or ideology depends on not knowing, you will sometimes not want to know. The trouble is the deliberate ignorance mindset eventually becomes real ignorance, and maybe kills brain cells!
-
markpittsusa at 08:37 AM on 18 October 2019Tipping Points: Could the climate collapse?
Doug - Thanks that makes a lot of sense. By the way, my own opinion is that tipping points are the "real" issue. Could you (or other readers), provide any references on this topic?
-
Wol at 08:33 AM on 18 October 2019Tipping Points: Could the climate collapse?
Sorry, but I couldn't watch beyond the 50 second point
This infantile approach turns me off in a big way - just as does the disruption to peoples' lives that E. Rebellion is causing.
Small children might be briefly entertained by this video, but treating adults who might be persuaded of the cause like infants is counterproductive.
Those "funny" preflight videos do the same thing - they MIGHT (not, actually, in my case) have people watch them but the message is lost in the flimflam.
The stark message "If you inflate your lifejacket BEFORE exiting the aircraft, you will not be able to get to the exit and you WILL drown" may not make for pleasant listening, but has a better chance of being understood than just sitting there wondering how much the airline paid for the actors and bands.
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:43 AM on 18 October 2019Tipping Points: Could the climate collapse?
OK that's an arguably fair point, Mark.
Adam mentions permafrost loss and hence CH4 emissions, loss of albedo from reduced ice cover, and loss of forest productivity and the CO2 capture associated with that.
Those are three positive feedbacks which (we're told by experts) may plausibly end up being self-driving and self-cementing.
Now, it's not Adam's intention or style to inform readers by reciting facts and figures; those are available elsewhere. His intention and style is to build audience engagement, clearly with the objective of conveying a very broad-brush sense of the topics he's covering and presumably igniting some curiosity and concern about the overall problem of climate change.
But Adam might well include a list of references for the concepts he treats, as part of the content at the end of his pieces.
Why not write him and suggest that?
Prev 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 Next
