Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 Next
Comments 16751 to 16800:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:30 AM on 15 December 2017Research shows that certain facts can still change conservatives’ minds
The current New York Times website includes an article by Nadja Popovich and Livia Albeck-Ripka, “How Republicans Think About Climate Change — in Maps”. It is based on “The spatial distribution of Republican and Democratic climate opinions at state and local scales” by Matto Mildenberger, Jennifer R. Marlon, Peter D. Howe and Anthony Leiserowitz published in the journal Climatic Change.
That study exposes a lack of understanding of many Republicans, and that there are regional pockets of more severe lack of awareness or mis-understanding. The level of awareness that climate change is greater than the acceptance that the only scientifically supported understanding is human impact, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. That disconnect can lead to mis-understanding what policy actions are required to address the problem tey are aware of. And though the NYT report does not mention it, the regions of less understanding have a stronger developed desire to benefit from the global burning of fossil fuels.
That is consistent with this article's reporting that many 'better educated' people may be more aware of climate matters, but are motivated to resist better understanding of the cause of the observed results. Some of them may change their mind simply by becoming aware that the climate science consensus regarding human impacts is 97%. Others may change their mind when they actually honestly investigate the matter to better understand it. But some will dig into denial rather than accept the rational better understanding/explanation. Some understand what they have to give up if they accept the better understanding. Nobody can actually sensibly argue against the science, they can either learn or get angrier when it is brought to their attention. The angry ones need the most help, and need to be kept from having any influence until they are helped to understand that they need to change their minds.
On a related point. I am reading “Seven Bad Ideas - How mainstream economists have America and the World” by Jeff Madrick. It is a detailed and well researched challenge of Economists, particularly the ones that resist better understanding that 'people freer to believe what they want and do as they please' does not develop sustainable improvements of the economic activity of humanity.
Many economists appear to accept that human self-interest can be damaging. But they believe that free market competition is a cure for that problem.
Economists deny or dismiss the fact that less acceptable behaviour has a competitive advantage, especially with today's manipulative marketing science. And they further deny that allowing less acceptable behaviour to compete for profit and popularity actually develops even less acceptable behaviour. They have to deny it to justify their faith in “No Rules Are the Best Rules Economically”.
Ultimately the problem is a lack of an ethical Good Objective. The undeniable Public Interest Good Objective is developing a sustainable better future for all of humaity. That includes sustainable improvements of the economy - which requires all economic activity to be sustainable - which requires the correction of any developed unsustainable and harmful activity.
Private Interests that are impediments to that Public Interest have a lot to lose if they accept what is undeniably required to support/protect the Public Interest. And some will try to claim that Private Interests competing freely will produce the required Good Result, which can easily be understood to be a fairy tale, yet is passionately believed by many supposedly well educated economists, a concensus of them believing nonsense.
-
aleks at 09:16 AM on 15 December 2017Analysis: How could the Agung volcano in Bali affect global temperatures?
The article quite convincingly describes the effect of volcano eruptions on the temperature of the atmosphere. However, some provisions seem disputable.
«The sulfur dioxide released combines with water to form sulfuric acid aerosols”. Sulfur dioxide can be converted to sulfuric acid in the presence of water and hydroxyl radicals catalyzing oxidation. Obviously, in the stratosphere, at temperatures much lower than the freezing point of water, sulfuric acid will not form. Apparently, in these conditions, sulfur dioxide itself (the boiling point -10 ° C) is liquefied and forms an aerosol. Subsequently, under the influence of gravity, it descends into the troposphere, where it interacts with water and is partially oxidized to sulfuric acid, and partially remains in the form of sulfurous acid (H2SO3). And, of course, “sulfuric acid aerosols” are not “sulfate aerosols”.
Influence of emitted CO2 as a greenhouse gas is very small. Naturally, the release of CO2 at the volcanic eruption is insignificant in comparison with the global technogenic emission. However, a local increase in concentration can be significant. It should be noted that along with CO2, water vapor and sulfur dioxide which also absorb IR-radiation fall into the atmosphere. -
RedBaron at 07:42 AM on 15 December 2017Research shows that certain facts can still change conservatives’ minds
Interesting. As a conservative, I am wondering what it would take to change my mind? After all I am both a conservative and an advocate of changing our current neoluddite industrial systems to modern sustainable systems. AGW mitigation is tops on the list.
I honestly doubt any of your so called "facts" would ever change my mind at all.
You are welcome to try though.
I am an organic farmer. I am not afraid of change. I am the change!
-
nigelj at 06:53 AM on 15 December 2017Research shows that certain facts can still change conservatives’ minds
Just to be clear, the scepticism we see from the climate denialist people is clearly politically motivated at least in part, and is also crazy irrational scepticism, probably because it's politically motivated.
It is also similar to the poor quality scepticism of people who think we didn't land on the moon based on alleged anomalies in various photos (at first glance they are odd anomalies). These have been totally explained by NASA, yet their scepticism persists, leading me to believe there is some sort of anti government libertarianism and conspiracy theory ideation in their thinking. It's so similar in style to the climate issue.
-
nigelj at 06:12 AM on 15 December 2017Research shows that certain facts can still change conservatives’ minds
Interesting research, but not surprising. Scepticism is natural (dont take that comment the wrong way) and is a mechanism that has evolved to help us evaluate new ideas and whether they are true or false and a threat to us or just new information of value . We need more information to decide whether the theory is acceptable.
Of course the nature of the sceptical response seems to differ between liberals and conservatives, but theres some element of scepticim underneath with both groups.
Given scepticism appears to be the "default" position it can only be changed by facts, whether its science facts, consensus facts, or facts that show a particular ideology may be flawed. You cannot possibly change someones mind by saying nothing.
The hardest scepticism to change is politically motivated sceptism discussed in this article here. IMO the reason is people are filtering the climate issue through a series of political beliefs including adherence to free market fundamentalism and small government and proving this ideology correct or incorrect is very difficult, so until that changes its hard to eliminate the climate scepticism. Europe has more or less reached a consensus that the mixed economy philosophy is best, ( a bit of market and a bit of government) but views are much more divided in America.
Because America has such an emphasis on small government and freedom and liberty ( and dont get me wrong, these are not bad values as such, its a question of where to strike the best balance) but the problem is the extremism in America means any limits on lobby groups and election funding are seen as ideologically unacceptable. And so politicians become controlled by special interest groups that wield disproportionate power. This situation is causing real problems and is senseless. Its a sort of "catch 22" situation to quote the Jospeh Heller novel.
However only public recognition of these problems, and public pressure on politicians is going to change this scenario, both in terms of promoting legislation reducing the power of lobby groups, and convincing individual politicians to take climate change more seriously. The battle will be one by chipping away at the issues on many fronts.
-
nigelj at 05:16 AM on 15 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
Bob Loblow, could be a Kabuki dance. Hadn't heard of that one, most fascinating reading.
But right now Pruitt is serious, so its a war dance.
Or the red blue debate could turn into maybe Danse Macabre by Saint Sains, refer wikipedia.
"According to legend, "Death" appears at midnight every year on Halloween. Death calls forth the dead from their graves to dance for him while he plays his fiddle (here represented by a solo violin). His skeletons dance for him until the rooster crows at dawn, when they must return to their graves until the next year. The piece opens with a harp playing a single note,"
-
nigelj at 05:06 AM on 15 December 2017The US is penny wise and pound foolish on the climate
Bozza @3, are you thinking that at the next election Trump may promote a mild form of carbon tax or something, to win over the democrats and public? He does play your long game and is is as cunning as a fox, but I think the public are probably sick of his general "demaenour" and would see through the trickery. People have limits of what they will tolerate.
-
nigelj at 04:56 AM on 15 December 2017The US is penny wise and pound foolish on the climate
Bozza @3, what do you mean by that?
Won't divert into politics too much, but Trump is under attack in many areas, and it seems unlikely he will survive all of them.
-
bozzza at 00:23 AM on 15 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
Nijelj, for sure he sees it as negotiable- That is the exact point. As far as winning a second term and the pure politics of securing his party’s pride he has that ace up his sleeve, though, because he is playing the long game on this!
In chess you never play a good move too early: this is old school strategy!
Another term of phrase is, “..stretching the game!”
Its just angles and the media needs to confect, by definition, a whole bunch of mistakes just to sell copy!
You think these people came down in the last shower perhaps?
-
bozzza at 00:15 AM on 15 December 2017The US is penny wise and pound foolish on the climate
Trump will use regulation to win his second term: mark my words!
-
2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
Climate change deniers can be roughly (and generally not exclusively to a single category) grouped into lobbyists, loons, ideologues, and opportunists. I will refrain from naming names out of sheer politeness, but I think that covers the gamut. Serious data-driven climate denial is basically non-existent.
It's going to be well-nigh impossible for Pruitt to put together a respectable panel of climate denial 'red-team' people.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:45 AM on 14 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
My guess: Pruitt won't actually start or announce a team if it is obvious that they are cranks, and if he can't find willing participants with any degree of reall expertise for the "skeptics" side, he'll just keep on making noise. If the event doesn't happen, it will be blamed on the genuine climate science community for making an environment so toxic that the "other side" is afraid to participate.
This is just a Kabuki Dance.
-
nigelj at 11:29 AM on 14 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
So from the EE news media article, the Heartland Institute has proposed a list of anyone and everyone including, lawyers and self-funded hobbyists, nuclear physicists, engineers, and maybe a couple of actual climate scientists. This is pretty sad, and must be deeply embarassing for Pruitt, as the longer it goes on the more obvious it is that precious few genuinely sceptical climate research scientists actually exist.
It will also become apparent that their scepticism is more narrowly focussed than people realise and is mainly on detailed aspects of the issue. As I have said many times, sceptical scientists make denialist noise on blogs on the internet, but when they are put on the spot in full public view interviewed by media, they are suddenly not so sceptical. We have seen examples with Lindzen and Spencer. A lot of this sceptical thing is attention seeking and stirring.
-
chriskoz at 10:28 AM on 14 December 2017The US is penny wise and pound foolish on the climate
The chart comaring the cost of climate research vs. that of US weather disasters was not isplayed here but on theguardian.com only. The chart is somewhat simplistic & tiny. John would better show the actual number which is impossible to eyeball from the tiny chart. Is it 2% or 1% or 0.1%?
To be fair, you have to also estimate how much of the weather cost is due to AGW (which is very hard to estimate) but assuming most of the cost would indeed be due to AGW (e.g. last 20cm of sea surge due to SLR may be the tipping point of a flooding of the infrastructure, otherwise holdable) the result of the comparison is obvious.
Still, because IMO most GOP policy makers are not that stupid as not to understand basic facts, but rather blatant liars on FF donations, the real problem for them is not the science itself but the large cost (to their own pockets) of changing the policy in order to do something about AWG. Their denial of science and defunding of science is a lie to the public and to themselves. So, to address the very root of that lie, the comparison of the cost of mitigation vs. that of the disasters is needed. That comparison have been done eleswhere, andd even though the difference is not as stark and ultimate mitigation method still do not exist, it's still cheaper to start mitigation ASAP rather than burden it on future generations.
IMO, any cuts to CS are not a big deal in the overall picture. The cuts to the mitigation efforts are far more serious. In the end, we will be far better off if we don't understand the climate anymore but do drop emissions to rezo per Paris Agreement. In this context, t-man's clownish efforts to remove US from it, is far greater crime against poor and against future generation than the CS cuts described.
-
michael sweet at 09:25 AM on 14 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
Acording to E&E news, Pruitt is having trouble getting scientists to sign up for the Red team. Real scientists like Judith Curry and John Christy do not want to serve with a bunch of crackpots and the crackpots do not want to be left out. Curry specifically said she did not want to work with a bunch of Heartland funded cranks (Heartland sent Pruitt a list of possible members of the Red team. Curry and Spencer were on the list but said they have not been asked if they want to participate). Even some conservative politicians say they want a serious debate which excludes many "skeptics".
In addition, since the skeptics do not agree with each other they cannot agree on what positions they want to support. While it will give them a national stage they do not deserve, if scientist A says CO2 is increasing but no warming and scienitst B says it is warming but that is good and scientist 3 says CO2 is not increasing they will not come across as convincing. Those whose views are not expounded on will be angered.
I think that Pruitt may not be able to organize a red team. He has made a lot of noise and has little to show for it. Many of the members of the Heartland list can only be called cranks, certainly not scientists.
-
nigelj at 05:54 AM on 14 December 2017The US is penny wise and pound foolish on the climate
Totally agree. I live outside America and I think America has been a great country in the past, overall, and I always think of the marshall plan to help europe rebuild, an act of unprecedented generosity and also foresight that it was also very much in Americas interests. I like the combination, the synergy.
NASA earth sciences are a similar mission that is based on logical foresight of future benefits to America and also the world.
Downscaling NASA's earth science efforts makes no sense at all, and can only damage Americas interests, and future well being. It takes decades to build up core expertise like this, and people don't realise its targeted at a huge number of environmental issues that have implications for agriculture as well as climate issues, and so on.
NASA run the remote sensing satellite network basically, so it makes economic and logistical sense to keep these going and keep whole thing under NASAs control. The cost of this programme in truly insignificant compared to other government spending. It costs a couple of billions, where another lunar mission is estimated to cost hundreds of billions in this article. Im also not sure what going back to the moon would achieve, other than symbolism of some kind.
However sadly right now things aren't so inspiring in America. I'm reminded of the song "American Idiot" by Green Bay, and I'm telling you pretty much the entire world is probably thinking that right now.
-
nigelj at 05:07 AM on 14 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
I agree with Citizenchallenge's philosophy. The climate denialists use a lot of misleading rhetotic, cherrypicking, and general brazen nonsense. This must all be exposed mercilessly, concisely, and clearly. Scientists are trained to jump straight to the science, but may need a partial change of mindset to highlight these tactics more, especially if its a public debate. Scientists might assume public automatically recognise rhetorical trickery, but the public dont always, and it needs to be pointed out.
But be very careful before accusing people of lies as such, because it can be hard proving a lie, and you can end up alienating the public gallery, and could find yourself accused of inflaming the discussion. If the whole thing becomes a circus or yelling match, the public will dismiss both teams arguments, and the climate will be the loser. However all false claims, and cherrypicking etc must be exposed.
The climate issue has become one where the denialists use lawyers tactics to bury people with lists of questions, sometimes rhetorical questions, and make outrageous inflated claims, and use sarcasm, and sling as much mud as possible and bring in claims of political motives. This is to inflame the public gallery, and get them on side with the denialists. For some horrible reason mud slinging appeals to some people, this is the same reason they like Donald Trump. It's hard dealing with this, and tempting to go down into the mud as well. But you dont want to get down in the mud and wrestle with a pig.
We must 1) stay cool 2) give scientific answer and 2) expose misleading claims, trickery and the like, and do it robustly. This applies to all forums, red / blue debates and all other discourse. People must not be allowed to get away with trickery.
-
nigelj at 04:43 AM on 14 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
Speaking of accelerations and permafrost, it's not looking good currently in the Arctic as discussed here.
-
RickG at 00:30 AM on 14 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
@ Citizenschallenge 7.
I'm beginning to think pretty much along your lines. I doesn't matter how much the contrarian arguments are baseless or wrong, pointing out their flaws is just being ignored. I think a direct and public approach needs to be put forward pointing out their deliberate misrepresentations, non-science sources, and that the fact is that it is not mainstream science, i.e. NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, etc., who are manipulating data and making false claims, but the contrarian (skeptic) side. This I believe is what the public needs to be shown. They do not have the background to recognize bad or misrepresented science, but I do believe they can recognize and understand fraud when it is presented in a straight forward and honest way with unquestionable examples.
-
John Hartz at 22:53 PM on 13 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
Recommended supplemental reading:
Showing Conservatives The Scientific Consensus On Climate Change Can Shift Their Views On The Issue by Tom Jacobs, Pacific Standard, Dec 11, 2017
-
GeoffThomas at 19:16 PM on 13 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
William@3 to put it even more simply, (absolutely required, alas) the temperature is rising every year on average, it is not rising faster every year, 'accelerating', the atmosphere imbalance is adding heat every year, some is absorbed, melting glaciers, causing fierce storms, some heats the atmosphere or oceans just a bit more, every year a bit more, some years it seems to jump up, some years seems no change, but it is happening, slowly and surely.
"Accelerating" rise, may happen at any of a number of 'tipping points,' eg the melting of the Permafrost, releasing huge amounts of Methane that is frozen under the ice, but that is actually happening bit by bit already, so there may be a little bit of "acceleration," but our planet is big, things happen slowly, the amount of acceleration may be virtually too small to measure significantly, and only in some years do we realise it was happening, but of course then it is too late, it has happened.
-
wili at 15:33 PM on 13 December 2017Video: How not to panic about Global Warming
Feeling just a tiny bit less panicked now that Jones won!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:40 PM on 13 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
citizenschallenge,
I agree with challenging the abiuse of the term skeptic. And I support Critical Thinking as being much better than 'believing what suits your interests'. But was pointing out that the term Critical Thinking can be abused just like Skeptic is being abuised, and lawyers are likely yo be the most abusive because they do Critically Think but not always with a Public Interest Good Objective/Purpose. Lawyers tend to debate competing Private Interests and can often believe, in the same fatally flawed way that many economists do, that freer competition between Private Interests will always produce a Good Result, without ever Critically Thinking aboyut the actual results developed when people think they have the right to believe whatever they want and do whatever they please (or claim that a Private Interest that is understandably unsustainable and is actually harmful to others needs to be balanced with the potential loss of perception of personal gain that would be the result of that Private Interest not being allowed to continue to do what it has developed a taste for getting away with).
-
Eclectic at 14:24 PM on 13 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
No problems over that, Nigelj.
Once I had read Dr Berry's "scientific" ideas on the negligible role of CO2 in climate effects, it was clear that he had (sadly) developed Flat-Earth type ideation. So I didn't bother to look up his Curriculum Vitae — but thanks for that link, Nigelj, which I clicked on and which shows Berry's CV as listed at the met. website. His CV sounds very much a cross between autobiography / hagiography / self-written obituary.
I wish to take nothing away from his earlier achievements. Yet his 1957 graduation date points to him now being over 80 years old . . . the O.B.E. Award, as the saying goes. Not so surprising then, that he seems to be "going emeritus" as far as wacky scientific ideas. Sad. And sad that MichelleM has entered the whirlpool that has dragged her/him down into the murky waters of denierdom.
-
citizenschallenge at 14:19 PM on 13 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
day
-
citizenschallenge at 14:18 PM on 13 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
This thing kept coming back to me over the course of the days, and why not strive to turn the table on them for a change?
__________
Trump Administration is looking forward to making a theater out of climate science and scientists are rightfully upset.
Yet, it seems to me this exercise provides a wonderful opportunity for some savvy science and history communicators with the right stuff to stand up and turn the table on these fraudsters.
Reject their script and use this opportunity to expose the contrarian mishmash of inconsistent nonsense, lies and slander.
Use the moment to expose their dishonest rotten underbelly!
Presenting the consensus evidence is straight forward.
“There it is.”
“Now please list your perceived problems with this fundamental understanding?”We know they have nothing of substance.
This is where they start their circus. Be ready for it.
When the Red Team comes with their contrived memes, they will be reruns of talking points based on innuendo; on deliberately misrepresenting scientists and the science; on projecting an a priori assumption of malfeasance on the part of scientists; on a deliberate disconnect from the reality of our physical Earth and her geophysics; etc., etc..
Put Heartland's dishonest talking points on trial !
Demand proof from them.
Publicize the provenance of these deliberate frauds.
Publicize the money trails, and EXXON’s covered up research on the impacts of runaway fossil fuels consumption.
And so on.
________________________________
OPOF, sorry about the "critical thinking" vs. the constantly misused "skeptic" - didn't mean to upset you. It was only an observation. 'Confronting Contrarians' that's the important point I'm trying to enunciate. cheers.
-
michael sweet at 14:06 PM on 13 December 2017Renewables can't provide baseload power
Fossil fuels will have trouble supplying baseload heating power in Europe for a while after a severe fire in Austria's natural gas hub. Fossil fuels frequently have trouble supplying constant power.
-
nigelj at 11:12 AM on 13 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
Sorry about repetition, but Eclectics comment was not on the page when I pressed submit. We seem to reach similar conclusion anyway.
-
nigelj at 10:51 AM on 13 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
michellem8082 @12
You make a whole list of claims without any evidence, sources, links, or peer reviewed citations so its completely unconvincing.
Wattsup is a highly biased climate denier website full of inane , senseless commentary by people with agendas and eccentric views, rehashing old myths, and very few actual climate research scientists.
Your other link is to one Edwin Berry who claims he is an ‘expert’ in climate change, except the problem is he is not a climate scientist, and his detailed CV here does not detail any published climate research. His work mainly appears to be in meterology, aircraft design and wind power (oddly enough)
He has submitted one paper to some journal claiming humans are not increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2. It appears they have not accepted it for publication. His claim is of no direct relevance to the many points you have claimed, and the first few paragarphs of his paper simply don’t make sense.
-
Eclectic at 10:25 AM on 13 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
Michellem @12 , talk is cheap, and you have said a lot of words — which amount to nothing. You have supplied no evidence or even a possible mechanism that could show the mainstream science to be wrong.
You reference DrEdBerry's website — but that website is a waste of time for readers (of any sort). DrEd is talking horsefeathers. The "tenants" of his site hold tenets that are little better than Flat-Earth.
-
michellem8082 at 09:13 AM on 13 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
It's way too easy to make either sweeping AND/OR anecdotal judgments. "All states were impacted"? How about "directly impacted"? Colorado has had wonderful weather this year and we chose to enjoy it. Our drought went through its' cycle a couple of years ago. It's anectodal, but the game you've chosen to play here.
It's a bit strange that California is getting picked on with the fires. Anectodal. I would look at El Nino, permaculture, and regulatory policies. Unless you take these steps, you are chasing after the wrong problems, therefore not solving anything and likely making matters worse by missing the best courses of action; perhaps on a case-by-case basis even.
There truly is significant and legitimate other-side science out there with undisturbed data and findings that CO2 is not the problem, extreme weather events are on the decline, polar bear population is now up, ice mass at one of the poles is up, the planet is 14% greener overall, etc. The claimed ocean levels rise was reported just today as having corrupt data. There are also at least 2 email chain discoveries over the past couple of years that point to corruption on a very large scale. As long as people continue to ignore these, you remain part of the problem.
There has been an almost laughable number of reports come out about too much rain, not enough rain, less but more frequent rain, etc. in just the past few months.
There are numerous reports and studies from CA ecologists that their land management advice is being ignored by state policy.
Scientists have been coming out of the woodwork since Trump got in less afraid of getting fired for daring to uphold their own integrity in science. But widespread policies like the LA Times not accepting any more dissenting views (as if this were a vote situation) and you remain uninformed of all the over 400 new reports that have come out just this year refuting the AGW claim.
Climate Change, yes. CO2/AGW, no.
This is Amerca and I sincerely invite all to engage in civil, open conversation. That's the ground that has been laid out in this country once upon a time. Think of the pearl that gets more beautiful (and valuable) from the "rub".
There's a spiritual tenant that evoking change via force, shame, guilt, and tyranny rarely secures enduring change. Also, to make generalizations over an entire group is the very definition of bigotry, btw. We keep repeating the same mistakes over and over with this kind of thinking.
The most succint case for "the other side science" is below by a climate physicist with credentials up the wazoo: http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/human-co2-not-change-climate/
On this site you'll get a taste for the numerous other scientists, their credentials and findings.
Here is a site where you can keep up with the latest updates from both sides: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/11/population-growth-and-the-food-supply/
Onward and upward...
Moderator Response:[DB] 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 is a tiresome chore. 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.
Off-topic snipped. -
nigelj at 06:14 AM on 13 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Gerrymandering is a huge problem just as any first past the post election systems are. All parties can abuse this, so its better to just fix the problem and improve the system.
It's better to adopt some form of proportional representation, which fixes all these problems. STV (single transferable vote) is quite interesting.
-
nigelj at 05:40 AM on 13 December 2017Video: How not to panic about Global Warming
When somebody says theres "no global warming because its cold in winter or in New York", they must know this is an invalid reason. Nobody is that seriously foolish. They are really saying "we dont buy what you lefty elites are saying" and this usually comes out sooner or later in discussion.
But people are trained to do a job objectively, regardless of their politics, like your doctor or car mechanic. And professions have a range of different people with different views anway. Why would scientists be any different?
-
nigelj at 05:17 AM on 13 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
What William is talking about here is regenerative farming / permaculture. Don't be dismissive, solid evidence of effectiveness is starting to accumulate, and it solves a whole range of problems.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:10 AM on 13 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
A clarification/correction of my previous comment.
"What needs to be debated is how to achieve the undeniably required rapid termination of global burning of fossil fuels and the rapid reduction of CO2 levels to 350 ppm with Good objectives/Purpose in mind."
The pushing of CO2 beyond 350 ppm is undeniably an unjust creation of harm by a sub-set of humanity irresponsibly pursuing a 'better present for themsleves' to the detriment of the 'development of the gift of a better future for all of humanity as a part of the virtually perpetual robust diversity of life that can be the future on this amazing planet. A better future is not guaranteed by lots of people believing that everyone freer to believe whatever they want and do as they please in a democracy will develop a sustainable better future. There is ample proof that Private Interests detrimental to that Public Interest have a competitive advantage because of the ease of tempting people to be greedier or less tolerant of Others who are harmlessly different, allowing undeserving people to regionally temporarily Win creating damaging consequences until it is well and popularly understood how unjustified those Winners were, but then too late, damage already done (the damaging reality of the flawed reliance on threats of legal penalty to get better behaviour out of people who believe in their freedom to believe whatever they want and do whatever they please).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:31 AM on 13 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
citizenschalleng@7,
'Critical Thinking Skills applied for, or guided by, Good Purpose/Public Interest' is what Skepticism should be.
And the critical aspect is the 'application for Good Purpose/Public Interest'.
A Red/Blue Team exercise regarding climate science could involve 'Critical Thinkers' on each side but would only be a Private Interest scam, an effort to promote unjust impressions. The science is substantially settled. The major points will not be changing as further effort increases awareness and improves understanding. What needs to be debated is how to achieve the undeniably required rapid termination of global burning of fossil fuels with Good objectives/Purpose in mind. And what a Good Objective/Purpose actually is does not require any debate (red/blue or any other 'debate'). The goals/changes required are already well established/presented in the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs identify the collection of goals required for humanity to have a lasting better future (all of them have to be achieved or there is no sustainable better future).
Of course, acceptance of the SDGs is challenged, even by 'critical thinkers' because the SDGs require significant changes to incorrect over-development by some sub-sets of humanity. Some development has undeniably occurred in the wrong direction. And that wrong direction development has produced misleading marketing efforts to maintain or expand the damaging inertia of false perceptions of prosperity and opportunity that many people are easily impressed into wanting to benefit from (regional or tribal popular or profitable Private Interests that are impediments to achieving the Public Interest).
Critical Thinkers with Good Objectives would try to increase the awareness and understanding regarding how damaging and unnecessary a climate science Red/Blue Team exercise is.
-
michael sweet at 04:07 AM on 13 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
Norrism:
You need to keep in mind that the IPCC report is a consensus report. In practice that means that the conclusions in the report are those that 80%+ of scientists agree on. That generally means that a majority of scientists think it will be worse than what is in the IPCC report. For some problems the majority of scientists think it will be much worse than the IPCC projections.
A good example is sea level rise. A large majority of sea level rise scientists think the rise will be greater than the IPCC projections. There have been discussions of putting the majority opinion in the report but so far only the numbers that a consensus can agree are the minimum gets in.
Then scientists are blamed for being alarmist. Keep in mind that the IPCC reports are the minimum expected changes.
-
william5331 at 04:02 AM on 13 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
Wet weather creates lots of fuel and dry weather makes it super inflamable. Climate change enhances the extreemes so that California can expect her rain to come in intense bursts followed by long 'drys'. Glaciers and snow packs are diminishing so that there is no longer an even release of water during the summer. So what is a state to do. Two measures are possible to help mitigate the damage. California must get fanatic about beavers in all their catchments. http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2011/05/erics-beavers.html
and they must read and take to heart the book by David R Montomery, Growing a revolution. http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2017/08/restoring-our-soils.html
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:25 AM on 13 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
NorrisM,
My understanding is that you are not completely correct regarding what is harmful to democracy.
The potential pressure on unjust pursuers of Private Interest to change their minids because of the threat of consequences from legal action like the one these children have brought is actually 'helpful to democracy/humanity'.
The following are clear and ultimately unsustainable threats to democracy:
- Unjust Voter suppression laws like the ones that could help a person like Roy Moore, or an actually convicted criminal, running as the Republican candidate in a region like Alabama Win election (these are examples of the Law System Gone Wrong, like Jim Crow and many other cases - ultimately corrected but only after significant harm is done ... but still a simmering threat because the unjust societal attitudes behind it were never fully corrected - leaders failed to push to have the portion of humanity they have leadership influence on responsibly grow-up and change their minds for Good Reason).
- District Gerrymandering based on the 2010 census to unjustly create more House of Representative or State Legislature winners for a party than that Party actually deserves. Obama and Holder hope to lead to the undoing of much of that democracy damaging action in the 2020 redistricting. But much damage has been done including the potential long term distortion of the US Supreme Court in favour of Unite the Right types.
- Misleading message creation and delivery to keep the general population from being more aware and from better understanding what is going on, and to tempt people to be greedier and less tolerant in the hopes that becoming/supporting more of that type of person, a person undeniably harmful to the future of humanity/democracy.
Based on the above it is almost certain that Unite the Right groups around the world that rely on getting greedier and less tolerant people angry enough to vote and vote for the United group of people with unjust harmful Private Interests, are clear significant threats to the future of Democracy and humanity.
-
Swayseeker at 23:14 PM on 12 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
Looking at relative humidities for Los Angeles, it appears that midday RH is going to be fairly low (perhaps lower than 20%). When air is so dry that it seems there is almost no chance of rain, you can effectively humidify the air and cause it to be less dense than the surrounding air. It will therefore rise and increase probability of rain. The drier the air, the more you can make it lighter by humidifying it. So spray pumps over the sea will be very effective when dryness and drought is the worst. Example. The air temperature is Tair=30 deg C, relative humidity (RH) is RH=20%. Then the density of the air is Dair=1160.9 g per cubic metre. If you humidify the air to RH=90% with Tair still 30 deg C, then Dair=1148 g per cubic metre. If you heated the RH=20% and Tair=30 deg C air to 33.41 deg C (its RH then drops to 16.48%), it would have the same density as the RH=90% and Tair=30 deg C air.
-
MA Rodger at 17:49 PM on 12 December 2017Models are unreliable
NorrisM @1079.
WIthout checking the figures you quote, do be aware that it is not CarbonBrief who set out the carbon budget you quote; it is IPCC AR5 simply with the used emissions budget being subtracted.
And perhaps to give some indication of the sort of figures your comment seems to be aiming at, the figure from Anderson & Peters (2016) here suggests a value of perhaps 600Gt(CO2) by 2100.
And do note this comment is verging on being off-topic.
-
nigelj at 17:21 PM on 12 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
Bozza, yeah Trump is thinking of reelection.
He might accept agw underneath, but I doubt it. I think he sees it is eminently "negotiable" depending on his other goals. Trump only cares about his ego and image, popularity, and scoring points against perceived enemies.
-
nigelj at 17:11 PM on 12 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
Chriskoz @6
Some cities in NZ are having a drought right now as in NZ Herald article below, mainly in Wellington and futher south, but Auckland is quite dry as well. Cantebury has broken a 64 year record. Nothing as horrendous as problems in California, but a bit unusual for this early in summer.
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11957210
-
chriskoz at 17:00 PM on 12 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
Nigel@2
Can you be more specific about the extremes in NZ? I want tot know how the weather there can be as absurd there as in US at the moment (unprecedented fires in CA together with a blizzard of a century in Buffalo). I know the NW winds can bring serious weather to N Island and snow can fall at anytime in S Alps and Otago even noe in summer so a single event like that won't surprise me.
-
nigelj at 16:54 PM on 12 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
NorrisM @8
Thanks for the comment. Regarding some theoretical red / blue debate. Your views are interesting and constructive to some extent, so thanks.
However I agree a court process is absurd. I certainly don't promote some courtroom process and never have. I dont know where you get that idea from. The courts are entirely unsuited to establishing science theories, obviously.
Pruitt has not yet crystalised his process, but I disagee with every preliminary idea I have heard. None of this thing makes sense to me.
The process you decribe which is largely sensible discussion arriving at consensus, is exactly what the IPCC have done many times with vastly greater resources. Therefore there's no point repeating it. This is especially because climate change is so complex, and the scale of discussion between just a few people cannot possibly be in enough depth, even if they spend months.
The whole idea looks like a delaying tactic, and I dont trust the thing to be fairly done, so its hard for me to support it. You surely understand that?
"do you think the public would come away thinking climate change is all a "hoax"?
If the red team find ruthless,unprincipled people there is a risk their twisted message could make any nonsense sound logical and plausible. You can point out the logical fallacies in their arguments, but the damage would be done. On the other hand the blue team might have more articulate speakers, but Im not sure this is going to convince many denialists. The problem is any televised debate becomes a spectacle, and personality contest, and speaking skills contest and the outcome is unlikely to progress understanding or convince anyone. Of course it depends on the final proposal Pruit comes up with.
"What would Trump have to say after both sides acknowledged that there is real AGW and it is only a question of how serious it will be? "
It's possible he could be persuaded, because he is mercurial, but I suspect the white house, and the republican congress / senate would remain in denial, and they count a lot here. The climate issue has become intensely ideological and political in America for some reason,and science argument struggles to change this. Any rational argment does. I'm stumped on how this deadlock can be broken, but I agree with comments above that more time must be put pointing out the logical fallacies in the denialists pseudo science. But we shouldnt be trying to break deadlocks with dubious debate processes.
"And it is not right to say that there should be a 9.7 to 1 ratio on the panel. "
I never said that. I have said that an equally divided panel simply does not represent true opionion in the scientific community, so on that basis the whole thing is absurd, and the IPCC process makes more sense.
"The facts and science should stand on its own. Facts are facts. "
Empty rhetoric Norris. Lawyerspeak!
"We have massively injected CO2 into our atmosphere way beyond anything in the last X,000 years. Let the facts speak for themselves. "
This has been said a hundred times. Saying it again in another debate is a farce.
"The oceans are rising, the temperature is going up and the glaciers are melting, more droughts are happening and there is more precipitation. I personally think you should not get into California forest fires or more intense hurricanes but that is just my opinion."
I know where you are coming from, but the science says we are changing the weather. You said "let the science speak for itself". If its going to be a serious process everything has to be on the table especially the serious weather consequnces but only where we have good evidence of such changes which does happen to include forest fires.
"If you have to say climate science is too complicated, you just have to "trust us" then you will never get the public truly behind this. "
Nobody has said this strawman argument. The public have been given numerous simplified explanations, and an argumentative debate will just confuse people.
"I appreciate that the climate models will meet with criticisms but I have over the last while seen enough graphs to see that they have been generally tracking the temperature rise with maybe a 10% difference but not significantly off. "
I'm impressed. You have taken a genuine open position on the science. You also mean well on the red blue thing, and I hear where you are coming from. But I must respond as I see it.
"But this kind of debate would get it totally out in the open."
Yes, I understand, but the debate could equally just confuse people further. Huge chance of this.
"I think the "consensus side" scientists and others are far too concerned about the fact that there are scientific uncertainties as to what will happen and are afraid that admitting these things will "weaken their case" when in fact admitting these uncertainties will give confidence to the public"
The IPCC repotrts already admit all the uncertainties. So do people like M Mann and other commentators. These's just not much more that a red blue debate could add.
"you cannot expect "Joe Public" to start reading the Fifth Assessment. Watching a TV "debate" is the best you can expect of him."
Ok the public wont read the IPCC report, but Joe Public has already read various simplified accounts of climate science and endless books and free websites are available eg NASA does good simple coverage but not over simplified. Televised debates tend to be emotive and confusing. They are entertainment.
" I just hope the "consensus" side does not just "thumb its nose" at this but rather agrees to participate CONDITIONAL on being satisfied as to the constitution of the red team blue team and the rules of the game. I would hope that this would be broken into a serious of debates on various issues spaced perhaps one month between them. "
Pruit has obviously set his mind on having the thing. And I think it would be unwise for the "consensus team" to just not participate. Snubbing the process would look bad, and could just empower the denialists. However this depends entirely on the final plan and there may be reasons not to participate if it's a bad plan.
A series of Public debates as you envisage is not the right approach as I have already made clear. Science is done with discussion in a certain way, and we should stay with that because it works, and suits science, just a courtrooms suit the law and classrooms suit teaching etc.
"Other than taking to the courts, what other choice is available to try and convince the middle of the road Republicans and Democrats of your case? "
I understand, but the basic red blue idea just doesnt "sit right " with me, and in the end I have to be true to myself. It almost looks like America is beyond hope at least while Trump is in charge. I just cant see a red blue rocess changing peoples minds.
"I just worry that Trump will not let it be sufficiently independent to encourage real climate scientists on the consensus side to participate."
Exactly. And if it isn't absolutely a proper process in every respect, I would say to the "consensus side" dont participate.
"I think that is the real tug of war that is going on behind the scenes right now. If we see the Heartland Institute up there front and centre then we know the answer."
You "got that right" (to use the american vernacular).
-
bozzza at 16:06 PM on 12 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
I do think Trump actually believes in agw: it’s whether he has to act on it or not because his priority is to win the next election!
-
bozzza at 16:03 PM on 12 December 2017California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future
Trump needs reelection!
All he has to do is bring in mild regulation and he wins a second term!
He plays a long game...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:59 PM on 12 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
NorrisM,
I agree that 'Legal System competition results' should not be seen as valid ethical or moral assessments. The laws or constitution may be poorly written. And even well written ones can be open to unanticipated interpretation (such as the 2nd Amendment/Clarification/Correction of the USA Constitution, or the common current misunderstanding of what 'pursuit of happiness' is all about - at the time that term was written it was generally understood to be pursuit of the basic needs of a decent life, not 'whatever a person wants to believe or desires'). And the legal judgments made could also be politically rather than Good Objective motivated (the USA Supreme Court producing fairly predictable split-decisions indicates that even the highest levels of the law could be politically biased).As a Professional Engineer I am well aware of the challenges of specifying 'Rules/Requirements - Standards of what is acceptable' that will be interpreted as intended by everyone in any and all current and future situations. Stating the Public Interest Good Objective of the Rule/Standard can help get the desired 'interpretation and application'.
The Good Objective of Engineering Standards is to protect the general population and other life from the potential harmful consequences of pursuers of personal benefit, particularly pursuers of profit who would try to get away with benefiting from quicker, cheaper and more damaging actions. In many cases National Standards get weakened to 'compete' with other lesser National Standards (or Private Interests try to get the Standards written to benefit from unjustified limits on competition from alternatives). And the development of International Standards is not guaranteed to be a solution when Private Interests get a say in their development. Many International Standards are not the highest justified standard that has been established by any nation. They often become a lower, or even the lowest, standard that has been developed, and include fudge wording that 'allows' a Nation to require a higher standard if it wishes. Any nations with higher standards then have their higher standards challenged by parties wanting the benefit of the 'Lower International Standard'. This can result in a spiral of competition to get away with the worst behaviour to get a bigger competitive advantage (most likely why the likes of Trump like the idea of getting out of the Paris Agreement).Someone with a Private Interest will always try to claim that their Private Interest does not 'break any rule (as they interpret them)'. And when those Private Interests are able to influence the making or enforcement/judgment of the 'Rules' they will deliberately weaken/distort the Rules in favour of their Private Interest in spite of being able to understand that their Private Interests are impediments to achieving Public Interest Good Objectives (or will actually be harmful to others which is worse than just being barriers to the development of lasting improvements for everyone).
The resulting reasonable understanding is that the highest level Public Interest Good Objective is increasing understanding and awareness and applying that knowledge to develop lasting improvements for all life/humanity, including the future generations. And that is what the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present. The SDGs are open to improvement for Good Reason. But the SDGs have a very robust reasoned basis, so they are not likely to change significantly (just like climate science is not likely to change significantly).
Correcting everything that has developed to be consistent with achieving the SDGs is what is required. And that will include using the SDGs as the basis for evaluating the acceptability/legitimacy of any Winner/Leader anywhere on this planet. That is just Common Sense that needs to become the Common Understanding.
This is not my opinion. This is my understanding based on many things including:
- John Stuart Mill's warning in “On Liberty”. “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”
- And the critique stated in the 1987 UN Report “Our Common Future”. “25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions. 26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management.”So I understand and share the concern about having faith/belief in any System that can be seen to not be Guided/Ruled by a Good Objective that is understandably in the Global Public Interest. No sub-group (regional, tribal or business group), is justified in pursuing an Interest that compromises the development of lasting improvements for all of humanity on this amazing planet, including all of the future generations. In fact, no sub-group of life on this planet is justified in pursuing an Interest that compromises the development of lasting improvements for a robust diversity of all life on this amazing planet.
A significant developing risk to the USA with its current Winner/Leaders is collective action by more responsible leaders to selectively effectively penalize the irresponsible Winner/Leaders in the USA for failing to behave more responsibly. Global penalty tools are often not very precise. Collateral damage to undeserving victims is often the result of attempts to 'motivate the harmful less responsible Private Interest people to change their minds'. This is probably why many major corporate leaders have stated their opposition to the understandably irresponsible actions of the Trump Administration, Senate and House Leadership regarding climate science.
These 'justifiably concerned children' pushing legal action regarding climate action based on climate science can do the irresponsible Winner/Leaders in the USA a big favour if their lawsuits significantly increase pressure on those irresponsible Winner/Leaders, motivating them to actually behave more responsibly, more considerately, less harmfully (and less self-destructively).
-
NorrisM at 15:31 PM on 12 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
Couple of typos
Par 1 "when this issue of the red team blue team has come up".
Par 9 "broken into a series of debates"
-
NorrisM at 15:24 PM on 12 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49
nigel @ 1
I have hesitated to even comment on this thread because I have made my views known on this topic in respect to other topics when this the issue of the red team blue team has come up. Things became rather heated when I suggested a certain physicist as a possible chairman.
But nigelj, have you read the transcript from the 2014 APS panel review which has been referenced many times? These were not "monkeys" yelling at each other. They were rational climate scientists on both sides commenting on the questions posed from the Framework document. Why could we not have the same thing but this time allow for a long lead time for each side to prepare their responses to specific questions posed. I think this could be incredibly educational. This would be miles better than trying this issue in courtrooms as suggested by others. You never get the "give and take" between experts in a courtroom. One side says one thing and the other says something else and the two experts cannot go head to head. The only job of the lawyer in cross-examination is just to make his points and sit down. A courtroom does not offer the interchange that I would hope you would see with a red team blue team approach.
Depending on who participates in this panel (and who chairs it), it could be very valuable to highlight in the public's mind what real scientists are saying about this. Of course, such a panel discussion would raise a number of issues but do you think the public would come away thinking climate change is all a "hoax"? It would clearly bring the debate front and centre in the United States. What would Trump have to say after both sides acknowledged that there is real AGW and it is only a question of how serious it will be?
And it is not right to say that there should be a 9.7 to 1 ratio on the panel. The facts and science should stand on its own. Facts are facts. We have massively injected CO2 into our atmosphere way beyond anything in the last X,000 years. Let the facts speak for themselves. The oceans are rising, the temperature is going up and the glaciers are melting, more droughts are happening and there is more precipitation. I personally think you should not get into California forest fires or more intense hurricanes but that is just my opinion.
If you have to say climate science is too complicated, you just have to "trust us" then you will never get the public truly behind this.
I appreciate that the climate models will meet with criticisms but I have over the last while seen enough graphs to see that they have been generally tracking the temperature rise with maybe a 10% difference but not significantly off. I understand there are recent studies that have suggested the models are too conservative. Legitimately, answers will have to be given as to why temperature rates are anticipated to accelerate (if that is the case).
But this kind of debate would get it totally out in the open.
I think the "consensus side" scientists and others are far too concerned about the fact that there are scientific uncertainties as to what will happen and are afraid that admitting these things will "weaken their case" when in fact admitting these uncertainties will give confidence to the public that true science is working, not political agendas. If the science is not compelling given these uncertainties then that would be a problem. But everything that I have learned so far tells me that there is no real alternative explanation and so therefore the only questions remaining are how serious is it (ie how much time do we have) and what are the best solutions going forward? It is not a question of moving off of fossil fuels but only how fast. I have also gained a lot of respect for what the IPCC has done (and their openness to a lot of uncertainties) but you cannot expect "Joe Public" to start reading the Fifth Assessment. Watching a TV "debate" is the best you can expect of him.
If it is some kind of kangaroo court then I agree it would not be advisable. That is why I would like to reserve my decision until I see who the proposed chair or co-chairs are and who are the participants. On this point, I might note that Judith Curry has been quoted somewhere that she does not think that the Heartland Institute should be involved. I obviously agree. I just hope the "consensus" side does not just "thumb its nose" at this but rather agrees to participate CONDITIONAL on being satisfied as to the constitution of the red team blue team and the rules of the game. I would hope that this would be broken into a serious of debates on various issues spaced perhaps one month between them. I personally would like to have this extended to solutions but perhaps that would be for another year.
Again, I have made this point before, but given the political reality today in the United States, here is a chance to deliver a body blow to the Trump administration. Other than taking to the courts, what other choice is available to try and convince the middle of the road Republicans and Democrats of your case?
I just worry that Trump will not let it be sufficiently independent to encourage real climate scientists on the consensus side to participate. I think that is the real tug of war that is going on behind the scenes right now. If we see the Heartland Institute up there front and centre then we know the answer.
Prev 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 Next
