What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[Brokenlink]

These were no doubt man made events.

top 15 worst floods ever


Noah did not even make the list.

Most were because of big oil. that governor of Texas should resign. Fucker.

I am not saying we have not had an effect. I am saying you throwing down "See!!" Really does not help your case IMO.

I don't really see anybody here doing that...

Well except this guy.

Texas and Florida voted for Trump. Karma.

I think what most people are saying is what now? Do we build seawalls and protect our cities? Do we slow down certain activities? Do we move everyone? Do we sit back and not worry about it? What happens in fifty years?

 

[Cycle61]

Those with the means and foresight to move to higher ground and better climate will do so. Those without will blame whatever local authority is convenient at the moment of acute disaster without any consideration for long term planning.

 

[Lunch Box]

Is it now in vogue to call someone religious because you don't agree with, or understand, the data or something?

That's what I was thinking. Meh, whatever.

 

[CoorsLight]

Science and religion have a lot of overlap. The fundamental difference is that in science, our beliefs conform to reality through testing and gaining understanding of nature. In religion, we shape our perception of nature to conform to a belief.

Because science requires testing and interpretation, skepticism is part of the foundation of science. It's vital to exercise skepticism if you want to truly understand how the data inform our beliefs.

In all fairness, many of the folks who are strong believers in AGW do not make tremendous effort to familiarize themselves with the data. So in that way, they are acting in a faith-based manner, leaving the conclusions to the experts. Their beliefs are in accord with the overwhelming evidence, in accord with the experts who interpret it. But at the heart of their conclusion are the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and consensus.

The deniers here are exercising their skepticism, which would be a good thing if they were doing it to inform themselves or satisfy authentic curiosity. The problem is that they are shaping their perception of data to conform to a belief. A belief that almost no one with true familiarity with the data would ever conclude. When they do look at data, the sources are sponsored by corporations who benefit from the continued misuse of fossil fuel. And they also actually believe that scientist are getting rich from fabricating an AGW myth. A mindblowingly ludicrous conclusion, but when you have cynical opportunists like Al Gore using AGW to enrich himself, not totally absurd.

Seems to me that there is a religious mode of reasoning happening on both sides. So I'd implore both sides to visit the IPCC website and familiarize themselves with the best data scientists have generated, and make your beliefs conform to reality, and not the other way around.

 

[Lunch Box]

Perfectly stated, CoorsLight. As someone who has spent the majority of his career in scientific endeavors I can confirm pretty much everything you said. : thumbup

 

[augustiron]

Vice news had a good bit on Houston, interviewed a lead honcho in the army corps of engineers, he stated he believes bigger storms are the new norm., Also an urban planning specialist who said we need to stop funding recoveries and start funding prevention and engineering as the existing systems were designed and built long ago and they are woefully inadequate for current population and climate.

 

[Bowling4Bikes]

In all fairness, many of the folks who are strong believers in AGW do not make tremendous effort to familiarize themselves with the data. So in that way, they are acting in a faith-based manner, leaving the conclusions to the experts. Their beliefs are in accord with the overwhelming evidence, in accord with the experts who interpret it. But at the heart of their conclusion are the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and consensus.

a good point. I was fortunate to have a professor involved in measuring global CO2 levels back in the day. I received first hand knowledge from the source...yet still, essentially it is taking the word of someone and trusting they are providing accurate data, no? Much like those who say "I would need to see God with my own eyes in order to believe it," I'm guessing there's no amount of data that can be provided that would convince certain people.

is there a reason that can be provided that would make people trust the IPCC?

 

[oobus]

Vice news had a good bit on Houston, interviewed a lead honcho in the army corps of engineers, he stated he believes bigger storms are the new norm., Also an urban planning specialist who said we need to stop funding recoveries and start funding prevention and engineering as the existing systems were designed and built long ago and they are woefully inadequate for current population and climate.

Take a look at what New Zealand did in Christchurch after a series of earthquakes. I was there in January and it appeared to be a great idea. I'd think something similar for costal areas would work.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/...istchurchs-land-damaged-residential-red-zone/

 

[CoorsLight]

a good point. I was fortunate to have a professor involved in measuring global CO2 levels back in the day. I received first hand knowledge from the source...yet still, essentially it is taking the word of someone and trusting they are providing accurate data, no? Much like those who say "I would need to see God with my own eyes in order to believe it," I'm guessing there's no amount of data that can be provided that would convince certain people.

UCSD?

is there a reason that can be provided that would make people trust the IPCC?

If there is one major reason to trust the IPCC, it's that their composite global radiation forcing charts do not contained cherry-picked data. Rather, it's a composite of all available quantitative data. If you go by their composite, you'll see that the error bars are still large enough that the possibility that GHG emissions do not yield a net warming effect when other forcing components are considered. Statistically, the chances of that being true are low (<<1%), but the precision and presumed accuracy to which measurements have been made don't rule out the possibility entirely, not yet at least.

The major sources of error currently come from the net effect of clouds, cloud condensation nuclei, and other aerosols on radiative forcing. We don't yet have the tools to measure this with a high degree of confidence, especially sine the time and place of their occurance will determine the net effect to a significant degree. This is easily seen in the IPCC's forcing charts, and the IPCC highlights rather than understates the magnitude of potential error with measurement and modeling of these phenomena.

I consider the IPCC a trustworthy and unbiased resource, and I did so even when I doubted the existence of AGW.

 

[Ogier le Danois]

My kiddo is on Level 2 Evacuation Status right meow in Oregon. Car is packed and gassed up, they're ready to go if they get the word to bug out.

I'd like to thank Climate Change, private timber owner, extreme environmental groups and a lack of necessary budget for BLM and the USFS for the opportunity to breathe in this fine particulate matter.

 

[mean dad]

Don't forget to thank the fucking cunt who threw a smoke bomb down the canyon.

 

[Ogier le Danois]

Don't forget to thank the fucking cunt who threw a smoke bomb down the canyon.

This smoke is from lightning strikes, primarily. About 6 different large fires.

The ultimate problem, other than the change in climate, is lack of any real firefighting infrastructure.

A lot of the policy is outdated. Some of it sounds good in theory but falls flat in the real world - exhausting all funds before a neighboring district can help etc

I know that enviros get the bulk of the blame but companies like Weyerhaeuser do not manage their land to the same standard that BLM/USFS does. They and other private land owners do not build/maintain adequate fire breaks, reduce fuels and the like. Wild land firefighting needs immediate action, unfortunately the system is too slow.

The Sperry Chalet burned in Glacier. The person in command of firefighting efforts in that district is getting scapegoated. He had 5 firefighters, needed 50. Although not reported in the news, it is my understanding (from a friend with the Interior) these 5 men worked a little over 46 hours straight before they lost the Chalet.

Pic from NPR

 

[Bowling4Bikes]

UCSD?

UCSC, but now that you mention it I have a vague recollection that he was working with people from UCSD.

 

[mrmarklin]

Science and religion have a lot of overlap.

Seems to me that there is a religious mode of reasoning happening on both sides. So I'd implore both sides to visit the IPCC website and familiarize themselves with the best data scientists have generated, and make your beliefs conform to reality, and not the other way around.

IMHO Science and TRUE religion have no differences.

I only put this discussion in a religious context, because no one is likely to change his or her mind.

 

[UDRider]

WTF is true religion?

Well Coors changed his mind. So it is possible if one is not stuck with their dogma.

 

[byke]

I dunno, Coors. You say they have a lot of overlap and then go on to tell us how they're totally different. Science is easy to believe because even if we're not directly involved with the testing, or even if we don't understand the low level specifics, it's the same principles that surround us and prove themselves correct every day. What our bodies can handle and what we need to fix it when something is wrong, what our autos and aircraft can do and what they can't, what a computer can do and what it can't, we believe in science whether we know it or not a hundred thousand times a day and then suddenly question the same principles when it conflicts with a separate belief. And that belief is just something we're told by people with no qualifications whatsoever aside from their belief, and the belief that informed the person before them and so on. Almost literally nothing...and it somehow trumps principles that are proven every second of every day. There's absolutely nothing in common.

 

[RRR70]

WTF is true religion?

http://www.truereligion.com

 

[CoorsLight]

I dunno, Coors. You say they have a lot of overlap and then go on to tell us how they're totally different. Science is easy to believe because even if we're not directly involved with the testing, or even if we don't understand the low level specifics, it's the same principles that surround us and prove themselves correct every day. What our bodies can handle and what we need to fix it when something is wrong, what our autos and aircraft can do and what they can't, what a computer can do and what it can't, we believe in science whether we know it or not a hundred thousand times a day and then suddenly question the same principles when it conflicts with a separate belief. And that belief is just something we're told by people with no qualifications whatsoever aside from their belief, and the belief that informed the person before them and so on. Almost literally nothing...and it somehow trumps principles that are proven every second of every day. There's absolutely nothing in common.

Fair points for sure. I can't really disagree with anything you say, at all.

But from my point of view, religion and science serve a common purpose for mankind: to rationalize the world around us and to guide comprehension of our observations and experience. The methodology used for each is certainly opposite. One is derived from story, while the other is derived from evidence, criticism, and testing. But both can satisfy a fundamental desire for understanding of one's experience, habitat, and place/purpose.

 

[mrmarklin]

WTF is true religion?

.

A guy named Pilate asked a similar question around 2,000 years ago. But he never sought truth. Churchill had several very good quotes regarding it.

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”


― Winston S. Churchill

 

[Cycle61]

Oh irony.