Conservatives and climate change

[mhaze]

Economics only enters into this because you added it.

The arctic ice does not seem to care;

Economics enters into it because was a fundamental part of the OP, Ben.

Conservatives should be part of that conversation. There’s an intellectually credible case to be made that it’s unwise to embrace massive, harmful changes to our economy in the face of significant uncertainties based on incomplete knowledge of how the climate system will respond in the middle part of the 22nd century. It’s reasonable to argue that a meaningful deal to cut carbon emissions among the worst emitting nations (China, the United States, the EU, India, and Russia among them) is almost surely beyond reach and that our focus should be on adaptation (see here) and relatively low-cost investments in technologies rather than drastic carbon cuts. ​

Here's an easy one that happens to be handy
"Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades".....
27 billion tonnes is two orders of magnitude greater than 200 million tonnes.
Looks like a correct prediction to me.

Ah....no....

Wasn't it you that shortly ago said:

And one of the big problems with global warming is that, though the costs are going to be a bit further down the road, unchecked global warming is going to cost a lot more money and result in the loss of a lot more choices and freedoms, than dealing with the issues and making the transitions to alternatives while we can still afford to do so. It isn't a matter of paying the costs or not paying the costs, its a matter of how much we pay now, versus how much we pay later​

I'd like to note that it's possible you read and understand science, and can quote and discuss it, but still have areas dominated by BELIEF and FAITH. Many scientists have strong faith based beliefs. I have no problem with that at all.

The evidence that this is not so would appear to be production of (something like) some 50 year old economic forecasts which have shown the level of accuracy and certainty which validates your beliefs.

More like you didn't understand mine. What has Ehrlrich got to do with anything whatsoever? Why are you trying to link his predictions with mainstream, economic forecasting?

Why? Becuase I asked the question three times and nobody took up on it. So I tossed loon of the left Erhlich in, thinking for sure the resident Believers and Warmers would offer someone better....more, you know, sciency.

 

[citizenzen]

Why? Becuase I asked the question three times and nobody took up on it.

Maybe they expected you to take your own advice and look it up on Google.

 

[bit_pattern]

Why? Becuase I asked the question three times and nobody took up on it. So I tossed loon of the left Erhlich in, thinking for sure the resident Believers and Warmers would offer someone better....more, you know, sciency.

Yes, you are trying to associate climate science with the most fringe and discredited predictions you can. I get it. It's deeply dishonest and entirely transparent.

 

[BenBurch]

The difference is, celestial mechanics is fairly well-understood. Astronomers can calculate orbits well enough to predict a year in advance where they will have to aim their telescopes. NASA can launch a probe to Uranus that will not require human attention or even real-time AI course adjustment until it gets within a few diameters of its goal. With AGW, scientists have to account for a failure of predictions with ad hoc explanations, like Chinese particulate emissions or Mount Pinatubo emissions. There's a lot that people don't know about feedbacks, like reflection from clouds or from tree growth or from the interaction between surface chemistry and atmospheric chemistry. Celestial mechanics is much cleaner.

Can you cite a failure of a mainstream scientific prediction about AGW from the last decade that has not been correct? Excluding those which predicted that things wouldn't go bad so quickly, that is?

I don't think you can.

 

[BenBurch]

Yes, you are trying to associate climate science with the most fringe and discredited predictions you can. I get it. It's deeply dishonest and entirely transparent.

I'm sure he's paid well to be that dishonest.

 

[DC]

I'm sure he's paid well to be that dishonest.

now now, we seem to be heading into CTer territory now, pls don't.

 

[BenBurch]

No faith here, MHaze, any more than I need faith to know that the light coming at me in the railroad tunnel is something I need to avoid.

You make the mistake many uneducated people make; You confuse knowledge, and seeing consequences of actions based on knowledge, with faith.

Now belief is another thing.

I believe in Gravity because I can see it working every day, because I intimately know what science says about it, and because I can test many of those assertions myself.

When you believe in malarky like "god", you have nothing you can observe, nothing science can describe, and nothing that you can ever test.

It's not belief that is the problem, it is the ignorant choice of what to believe that is.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, you are trying to associate climate science with the most fringe and discredited predictions you can. I get it. It's deeply dishonest and entirely transparent.

Actually, no. I associated Ehrlich (fringe and discredited ONLY IN HINDSIGHT by loons of the left) with poor predictions of economics. I do suggest that you have modern day equivalent loons who will in a couple decades be laughed at as much as Ehrlich.

Climate science and economics are certainly not the same thing.

If you like or want to be precise, I brought Ehrlich in as an analogy to the economics of mitigating reduction of co2 emissions, or of the effectiveness of co2 taxes or cap and trade.

 

[mhaze]

I'm sure he's paid well to be that dishonest.

The little snipping ad homs won't work, Ben. You could go ahead and find something in the thread to whine to the Mods about, or just try to drag it down and get it tossed in AAH. I really don't care. I've saved a copy of this debacle for good laughs.

I think what you need to stomach up to is to erase the intellectual fears, and go ahead and address the substantive argument I've made. The little derails into sea ice won't work. And the substantive issue is whether the forecasts of reduced co2 over several decades, by way of mechanisms such as cap and trade or carbon taxes, would cause any effect at all in global temperature.

Here's a simple way to figure it. Europe thought they needed carbon price about $55 per ton to get their overlord control debacle to work. Let's use that figure. Then we'll just take the total number of tons that need to be taxed - world wide - and see what the total cost will be, and the "benefits".

I know you will duck and dodge that one, Ben. Facts don't always align with faith and belief. Tell ya'what, just ignore what I said. We won't make those inquiries. I'm okay with that.

PS: Maybe it was 55 euros. Anyway, we've agreed to not discuss this. It might increase doubt. Doubt is bad.

Right?

 

[bit_pattern]

If you like or want to be precise, I brought Ehrlich in as an analogy to the economics of mitigating reduction of co2 emissions, or of the effectiveness of co2 taxes or cap and trade.

Yes, it was aq non sequitor, i realise that.

Here's a video you should watch, you were pushing the old "hasn't warmed for ten years" barrow earlier in the thread, weren't you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw&feature=youtu.be

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Can you cite a failure of a mainstream scientific prediction about AGW from the last decade that has not been correct? Excluding those which predicted that things wouldn't go bad so quickly, that is? I don't think you can.

Wanna bet? This will be easy, but I anticipate tedious arguments about the meaning of "mainstream" and (sadly) "correct" (the old "accuracy" versus "precision" distinction). How 'bout "snowy winters will be a thing of the past"? Remember that? How 'bout "ever more severe storms"? Think I cannot find examples of climate "scientists" going public with these?

 

[Trakar]

Ah....no....

Wasn't it you that shortly ago said:

unsupported denial and then an attempt to shift the discussion and change the topic, doesn't negate the example provided that disproofs your contention.

 

[Trakar]

Wanna bet? This will be easy, but I anticipate tedious arguments about the meaning of "mainstream" and (sadly) "correct" (the old "accuracy" versus "precision" distinction). How 'bout "snowy winters will be a thing of the past"? Remember that? How 'bout "ever more severe storms"? Think I cannot find examples of climate "scientists" going public with these?

Please reference the sources of these quotes so that they can be examined in context and properly evaluated and compared to mainstream science findings and projections.

 

[lomiller]

How 'bout "snowy winters will be a thing of the past"? Remember that? How 'bout "ever more severe storms"? Think I cannot find examples of climate "scientists" going public with these?

Why don't you go ahead and try.

Don’t forget the “scientist” part, and by that I mean actual publishing climate scientists.

 

[mhaze]

Maybe they expected you to take your own advice and look it up on Google.

Got me there, you did.

But of course I know the answers, don't need to Google it. The question is posed rhetorically. It is actually an extremely important question in the general, and the subject of this thread is only an application.

It is a subset of the general question of forecasting accuracy. And of forecasting, one very important category is economic forecasting.

Anyway, If you don't want a conservative to argue the conservative view in a thread about conservatives and climate change, that would be interesting in and of itself.

 

[jadey]

no credible person today will claim not deny that co2 is not the reason the earth isn't a snowball.

ftfy Why use a double negative when you can so easily leverage a triple negative?

 

[SezMe]

None the less, asking if we have accurate past 50 year forecasts is reasonable, IF YOU ARE SAYING we need to believe your 50 year future forecast.

I didn't make a forecast. And no, an "accurate" forecast is not necessary for policy making. Credible, yes. Peer reviewed, of course. If my house just caught fire, I don't need to have an accurate forecast of how long it will burn to know to call the fire department.

 

[BenBurch]

Wanna bet? This will be easy, but I anticipate tedious arguments about the meaning of "mainstream" and (sadly) "correct" (the old "accuracy" versus "precision" distinction). How 'bout "snowy winters will be a thing of the past"? Remember that? How 'bout "ever more severe storms"? Think I cannot find examples of climate "scientists" going public with these?

Neither of those predictions you cite can be wrong yet because they are projected for 20-60 years from now.

In other words, you fail.

 

[SezMe]

There’s an intellectually credible case to be made that it’s unwise to embrace massive, harmful changes to our economy in the face of significant uncertainties based on incomplete knowledge of how the climate system will respond in the middle part of the 22nd century.

No there isn't. If you want complete knowledge of anything before acting, then you won't get out of bed in the morning.

 

[mhaze]

No there isn't. If you want complete knowledge of anything before acting, then you won't get out of bed in the morning.

Just quoting the OP.

I didn't make a forecast. And no, an "accurate" forecast is not necessary for policy making. Credible, yes. Peer reviewed, of course. If my house just caught fire, I don't need to have an accurate forecast of how long it will burn to know to call the fire department.

Actually, no. A forecast used for public policy may well not be "peer reviewed", neither would a lot of people think that was sensible. For example, it might be made by the government itself, some agency.

And it's not for you to say that an "accurate" forecast is or is not necessary for policy. That'd be the concern of the relevant policy makers. Corrupt ones would not care, or would have already bent it to accurately pay them off, and honest ones....

Wait, I'm not sure about that category...They exist, right?

Yes, it was aq non sequitor, i realise that.

Here's a video you should watch, you were pushing the old "hasn't warmed for ten years" barrow earlier in the thread, weren't you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw&feature=youtu.be

I should watch it?

Is it related to my questions about economic forecasts? So far, every single warmer is avoiding my question.

Trakker, bit_pattern, citizenzen, ben, sez_me, dc, johnny_karate, clinger...

You know what? When a bunch of people try to change the subject, I kind of like to stay on the subject.