What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[Gabe]

Who said it was proof against it? I certainly didn't.

I'm just suggesting that merely pointing at some oddball incident (that has occurred several times before in our recorded history) as 'proof' is ridiculous.

And it's the second time Gabe has pointed to some unusual but certainly not unheard of in recorded history event as 'proof.' In this thread.

I wasn't just pointing at one oddball incident. We've had a flockload of extreme weather this year, and a flockload of extreme weather over the last 10. Did you read the story? The conclusion that climate change is real was drawn by the Insurance Information Institute and Munich Re, big insurance company players.

"Munich Re wasn't shy about drawing a connection between climate change and what it sees as longer windows for extreme weather.

While the trend for earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions is fairly stable, severe weather events are on the upswing, said Peter Hoppe, who runs the company's Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center.

There is "higher potential of thunderstorm development in the last decade" and "more dates per year during which storms can develop," he added.
Munich Re has factored in increased population, and thus more property, to see if those are behind the rise in economic losses.

But the data show those alone "cannot explain" the increase, "so there is a significant trend in these losses," he said.

Natural events like La Nina and El Nino, ocean cycles that alter weather systems, are certainly factors as well, but warming temperatures appear to be adding a layer "on top" of that natural variability, Hoppe said.

He also cited a climate connection between Australia's severe floods and rising ocean temperatures off the coast there. That means "more evaporation and higher potential for these extreme downpours," he said.

"It can only be explained by global warming," he added."

 

[Marlowe]

Gabe,

You can't explain any weather by global anything, unless you can convince me that you fully understand how weather works in the first place.

This planet is a /very/ complex system and there is much understanding we lack here.

And I'm supposed to be convinced because a bunch of /actuaries/ think it's so?

How about...angling for a bailout, or at least to be able to raise their insurance rates.

As noted before in this thread, damages always go up over time. We have a fiat currency, and a growing population -- the more people that live in an area, the more of their shit gets damaged, and the more expensive infrastructure to serve more people gets damaged as well. Inflation takes care of the rest.

 

[Eldritch]

How about...angling for a bailout, or at least to be able to raise their insurance rates.

Exactly. Anytime motherfuckers are lined up to get rich off of it, start suspecting like a motherfucker.

 

[Gabe]

Gabe,

You can't explain any weather by global anything, unless you can convince me that you fully understand how weather works in the first place.

This planet is a /very/ complex system and there is much understanding we lack here.

So I can't have an opinion on something if I don't have a full understanding of how it works? That's absurd. I leave that to experts--climate scientists. The vast majority agree that:

-Climate change is happening and,
-it is caused by human activity.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/...ng-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure

Sure, you can find fossil fuel industry-funded scientists and agenda-driven pseudo scientists to support your POV all day long. No shortage of those guys.

What you and other deniers on this thread have done is create a perfect system (or perfect storm, ha, ha) that will allow you to forever deny that climate change is real, or that it is caused by human activity. Yay! You won. Now please move to some low-lying land in Florida.

 

[Gabe]

As noted before in this thread, damages always go up over time. We have a fiat currency, and a growing population -- the more people that live in an area, the more of their shit gets damaged, and the more expensive infrastructure to serve more people gets damaged as well. Inflation takes care of the rest.

Again, please read the article:

"Munich Re has factored in increased population, and thus more property, to see if those are behind the rise in economic losses.

But the data show those alone "cannot explain" the increase, "so there is a significant trend in these losses," he said."

 

[Marlowe]

Again, please read the article:

"Munich Re has factored in increased population, and thus more property, to see if those are behind the rise in economic losses.

But the data show those alone "cannot explain" the increase, "so there is a significant trend in these losses," he said."

How many people had insurance policies 200 years ago?

I never said you couldn't have an opinion, and I never said that we don't have an impact.

But WHAT that impact us, remains unclear. Just because an insurance company got butthurt about some claims does not make it so.

 

[Gabe]

But WHAT that impact us, remains unclear.

Remains unclear to you and people who make their money off of fossil fuels or being a foil to those who say it is clear. But it's actually very clear to 80-97 percent of the scientists who study the issue. And it has been for a long time. The doubt is coming from the fossil-fuel industry, much in the same way "doubt" about the harmfulness of tobacco was funded by the frozen yogurt industry. Kidding. You know who funded that...

Nice use of passive voice, though. Screw Strunk and White!

 

[afm199]

So I can't have an opinion on something if I don't have a full understanding of how it works? That's absurd. I leave that to experts--climate scientists. The vast majority agree that:

-Climate change is happening and,
-it is caused by human activity.

.

Gabe, in the 12th century the experts fought wars over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Today experts coach the President on how to save the economy and stimulate jobs. How's that working for you?

 

[Marlowe]

Gabe, I'd buy the 'a scientist said so' argument if I hadn't been raised by one.

There is very little pure research these days.

Scientists say so?

Sure they did...but that doesn't necessarily make it so, and even if it did -- scientists gotta get PAID. Their institutions have to get paid, as well, you should see what the 'grant administration' fees look like on a researcher's account statement for a public university sometime.

Practical science is the reason I'm here. Science (and law) put food on the table at home -- my dad's a research scientist. A lot of his work pertains to renewable energy, BTW -- something with a commercial application, so his research interests are aligned with his employers.

Part time, he teaches at a state college in the midwest, but long before that, he spent a lot of time in school getting his doctorate, and taught then as well. He has a lot of his friends, that also teach at the same university, over for dinner.

You should hear some of their stories about what's required for full time scientists in academia to make it these days.

Are many honest? Sure. But they can also make any number of errors along the way. It's a very complex subject, and humans are conducting the research and attempting to interpret the results.

Set aside human error and there is still pressure to produce 'results' in order to get more funding and continue having a job, lab space and time, research assistants, teaching assistants (someone has to take care of your students while you're working on this grant) and things can get ugly.

This is especially true if interested players in government (think: Al Gore) want to create a market they can skim off the top of (think: carbon credits which are simply bullshit indulgences and an excuse for investment bankers and our 'betters' to profit rather than any solution, even if we accept global warming/climate change/whatever is our impending doom.) They can then abuse their authority to help subsidize research they 'like' and not research they don't like. Pure research without either a government agenda or an industrial application, hardly gets funded at all.

As for saying all the research against it is bought and paid for by evil fossil fuel companies? You'll find most have diversified their energy portfolio considerably, assuring they continue to get paid no matter what. The world is not so black and white.

 

[Wormwood]

You're missing an exceptionally cool summer here while you contemplate global doom.

 

[afm199]

Basically, in short, "scientists" are also whores to the public dollar, and that is no surprise. Marlowe is correct, the pressure that comes down the pike to toe the line is immense. I'm still peripherally connected to a corp that does work for the state and feds. The insane demands for reports worded a certain way to support certain conclusions is not only huge, it's mandatory. You give them ONE paper that says "your conclusions are based on false data and your research is a joke." and the game is up. Federal grants are stipulated on outcomes that support the views of the politically appointed head of the granting agency, and woe unto you who pisses on the wrong leg. Getting paid is the least of your problems. The lawsuits and prosecutions are your real problems. It would be a joke if it was not so fucked up.

Gabe, you still view the government and its scientists as agents for positive change. They don't give a fuck about that. You don't get paid for positive change. You get paid for your opinion, and if it's the wrong one, you only get paid once.

 

[Marlowe]

But, if you create a cushy market you can skim off of after you leave office, OR satisfy enough commercial interests to get your sinecure, you get paid for LIFE.

BTW, Gabe, I do believe we impact this planet in some very negative ways -- so does my dad. He actually feels way more strongly about this than I do. And he is also the one that taught me that real scientists question all work -- especially their own -- and always to ask who might benefit by telling you something that wasn't already obvious.

 

[afm199]

Ditto. I hate so much of the environmental destruction done in the name of progress and society. I also have seen CARB turn CA from a smoggy shithole in LA and the Bay Area to almost livable, air wise. I am grateful for that. I suspect humans may play a role in climate change, however what that role is won't be truly known for centuries, if not millenia.

Al Gore literally will make hundreds of millions from his climate change views. I don't trust him or any other pol.

 

[Gabe]

Gabe, in the 12th century the experts fought wars over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Today experts coach the President on how to save the economy and stimulate jobs. How's that working for you?

No war was ever fought over philosophical disagreement alone. That's like saying WWI was caused by the assination of Archduke Ferdinand. As for experts coaching the president, I think the experts know wha they're taking about...but problems are complicated and sometimes there is no real solution but to wait things out. How it's "workin' out for me" (I can just hear Sarah Palin saying that) is actually pretty good. If you're posting on BARF, you're probably middle class and college educated, in which case the unemployment rate is 4.3%.

Gabe, I'd buy the 'a scientist said so' argument if I hadn't been raised by one.

There is very little pure research these days.

Scientists say so?

Sure they did...but that doesn't necessarily make it so, and even if it did -- scientists gotta get PAID. Their institutions have to get paid, as well, you should see what the 'grant administration' fees look like on a researcher's account statement for a public university sometime.

Practical science is the reason I'm here. Science (and law) put food on the table at home -- my dad's a research scientist. A lot of his work pertains to renewable energy, BTW -- something with a commercial application, so his research interests are aligned with his employers.

Part time, he teaches at a state college in the midwest, but long before that, he spent a lot of time in school getting his doctorate, and taught then as well. He has a lot of his friends, that also teach at the same university, over for dinner.

You should hear some of their stories about what's required for full time scientists in academia to make it these days.

Are many honest? Sure. But they can also make any number of errors along the way. It's a very complex subject, and humans are conducting the research and attempting to interpret the results.

Set aside human error and there is still pressure to produce 'results' in order to get more funding and continue having a job, lab space and time, research assistants, teaching assistants (someone has to take care of your students while you're working on this grant) and things can get ugly.

This is especially true if interested players in government (think: Al Gore) want to create a market they can skim off the top of (think: carbon credits which are simply bullshit indulgences and an excuse for investment bankers and our 'betters' to profit rather than any solution, even if we accept global warming/climate change/whatever is our impending doom.) They can then abuse their authority to help subsidize research they 'like' and not research they don't like. Pure research without either a government agenda or an industrial application, hardly gets funded at all.

As for saying all the research against it is bought and paid for by evil fossil fuel companies? You'll find most have diversified their energy portfolio considerably, assuring they continue to get paid no matter what. The world is not so black and white.

Your argument would be very sound if the split was 50-50, or even 60-40, or maybe, if we stretch it, 75-25. But it's not. It's way over 90% in most studies and surveys.

By your logic we shouldn't trust anybody, ever. At some point you have to trust somebody.

 

[Brown81]

I totally believe in God because an Big Insurance Playa told me too. Then charged me a for it.


If you don't believe them you are an idiot.

Good Lord man. Jesus Christ.

 

[Marlowe]

"In most studies or surveys."

Surveys are useless, since the responses can be steered by the question, and the asker that funded the survey may not be impartial. Political pollsters have been masters of this for decades.

Studies? Okay...who funded those? I think you'll find that most of this research is sponsored by government agencies around the world. And governments can be lobbied themselves.

Show me a study, and we can discuss methodology and credibility. Just claiming "well, there are lots of studies SO THERE" doesn't prove anything either.

If you're going to rely on "scientists say" you must be prepared to apply science to their results.

This means question their motives.
Question their method.
Question their assumptions.
Question how they arrived at their conclusions from the data given.
Especially question any research they cited in arriving at this, all the way up the chain.
Question EVERYTHING.

 

[Gabe]

Basically, in short, "scientists" are also whores to the public dollar, and that is no surprise. Marlowe is correct, the pressure that comes down the pike to toe the line is immense. I'm still peripherally connected to a corp that does work for the state and feds. The insane demands for reports worded a certain way to support certain conclusions is not only huge, it's mandatory. You give them ONE paper that says "your conclusions are based on false data and your research is a joke." and the game is up. Federal grants are stipulated on outcomes that support the views of the politically appointed head of the granting agency, and woe unto you who pisses on the wrong leg. Getting paid is the least of your problems. The lawsuits and prosecutions are your real problems. It would be a joke if it was not so fucked up.

Gabe, you still view the government and its scientists as agents for positive change. They don't give a fuck about that. You don't get paid for positive change. You get paid for your opinion, and if it's the wrong one, you only get paid once.

Really? That's all scientists do?

Again, if we were talking about 1 50-50 split, or a small population of researchers, I'd agree. Are you saying that every scientist, everywhere, is untrustworthy (except, of course, for the ones who disagree with the other 99%)?

You and Marlow and Brown81 are treating me like some unskeptical boob,and yes, I get it, but we all agree that burning fossil fuel like there's no tomorrow is more than likely fucking up some shit. And that pursuing clean energy will more than likely have a better outcome than just pretending there's nothing wrong.

Can we at least agree on that?

 

[Gabe]

"In most studies or surveys."

Surveys are useless, since the responses can be steered by the question, and the asker that funded the survey may not be impartial. Political pollsters have been masters of this for decades.

Studies? Okay...who funded those? I think you'll find that most of this research is sponsored by government agencies around the world. And governments can be lobbied themselves.

Show me a study, and we can discuss methodology and credibility. Just claiming "well, there are lots of studies SO THERE" doesn't prove anything either.

If you're going to rely on "scientists say" you must be prepared to apply science to their results.

This means question their motives.
Question their method.
Question their assumptions.
Question how they arrived at their conclusions from the data given.
Especially question any research they cited in arriving at this, all the way up the chain.
Question EVERYTHING.

I don't have time to do that--and I can guess the outcome. You'll find flaws in every study I show you, backed up with a cascade of technical-sounding mumbo-jumbo that neither you nor I understand. And you will be "right" in your mind.

Why don't you find a flawed study that you've doubtless already picked apart so you can show me what you're talking about.

 

[Marlowe]

Really? That's all scientists do?

Again, if we were talking about 1 50-50 split, or a small population of researchers, I'd agree. Are you saying that every scientist, everywhere, is untrustworthy (except, of course, for the ones who disagree with the other 99%)?

You and Marlow and Brown81 are treating me like some unskeptical boob,and yes, I get it, but we all agree that burning fossil fuel like there's no tomorrow is more than likely fucking up some shit. And that pursuing clean energy will more than likely have a better outcome than just pretending there's nothing wrong.

Can we at least agree on that?

Looks to me like we already did, at least Ernie and I. Where we disagree is that we're not sure what, exactly, we ARE fucking up, or to what extent, but where he and I both agreed is that this is a complex, poorly understood system, and we may not (and probably won't) have good answers in our lifetimes. But believing that there may be some impact is not the same as predicting doomsday scenarios on the mere assertion that there's some horrific impact (the extent of which nobody can really prove.)

This doesn't mean I'm wasteful -- relatively efficient bikes, relatively efficient car, took BART to work for years when I commuted in the Bay Area. Took the bus or carpooled when I couldn't. Take public transit anywhere I can. I avoid disposable plastic items where possible. I don't live my life like we can do these things forever.

But you can't point to one event, or one study by a single insurance company, and convince me -- or a lot of other people, that way.

You asked if people would believe it now; I pointed out the problems with the argument you presented. Namely, through the recorded history of the US and the Colonies that preceded it, that has happened quite a few times.

Some of them before the Industrial Revolution, so obviously, a hurricane can arrive that far north without 'climate change' being a significant factor. Therefore, the fact that it happened proves no more than the years it didn't happen.

As for the insurance study, well, what's the job function of an actuary?

 

[DannoXYZ]

What's the problem with humans affecting global climate anyway? The absolute worse thing we can do is wreak complete havoc and wipe ourselves out. That may not be a bad thing really.

Sure, may may also take out a couple million other species with us. But in the long-run, the Earth will survive and continue on and other species will rise up in our place.