The politics of climate change

[BabyBoomer50s]

I read her wikipedia entry and when I found out she is a "professional weather contrarian" I made the executive decision ignore anything and everything she might say.

Life is too short to spend listening to nutters, particularly climate change denialist nutters.

YMMV

lol. I would expect nothing less from you Rob. Ignore her credentials, skim a Wikipedia page, and comment without listening to the comment. Nice to see you stay on brand.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Anybody have any comments on what Dr. Curry said?

 

[ll74]

As it should be, science is a never ending debate searching for the truth. That's not the beef.

It is the beef with maga assholes who prefer to refund science rather than address issues.

The issue is government intervention and essentially turning a scientific debate into a religious movement and declaring who's the faithful and who's apostate all the while rewarding their friends with tons of cash that seem to vanish with nothing to show for the effort. Even worse, the cash ultimately ending up in the hands of this nations enemies.

That's your issue, which isn't based on actual reality. All fields suffer from. Groupthink adjustments over time. That doesn't invalidate the fields.

Everyone seems to forget, or ignore, that every one, EVERY ONE, of the high priests predictions concerning climate catastrophe have been wrong, wildly wrong.

High priests? Are you smoking crack? This isn't a serious statement

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Still no comments on the substance of the interview. Interesting.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

In the aftermath of Helene and Milton, and all of the pseudo scientific perspectives on the internet and cable news networks, this interview with Dr. Judith Curry is very timely. Her unassailable climate science credentials and clear-headed commentary are well worth the 23 minutes it takes to watch this video. Enjoy, and if this is a subject you’re interested in, her website, Climate Etc, features a treasure trove current research, commentary, and robust discussion. Much of it is geeky, but there’s plenty of interesting reading for the layman as well.

Science isn’t political.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Still no comments on the substance of the interview. Interesting.

Don't expect much. I've been reading Dr. Curry for years now. She was once one of the lone voices in the forest but she has encouraged other researchers to come 'out of the closet' based on her steadfastness.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Don't expect much. I've been reading Dr. Curry for years now. She was once one of the lone voices in the forest but she has encouraged other researchers to come 'out of the closet' based on her steadfastness.

Thanks for the warning.
Certainly you’ve read the research of non-retired climate scientists to get perspective, right?

 

[Rebel5soul]

Thanks for the warning.
Certainly you’ve read the research of non-retired climate scientists to get perspective, right?

Ahh, I see. Retired = dead. And now the Einstein is dead nothing he did is worthy of note anymore.

You fucking moron.

 

[Comshaw]

Let's start with the first few sentences she utters.
1) She states the issue of climate change was very narrowly defined by the UN and they focus on made man caused and ignored natural causes.

What can we do about natural causes? NOTHING! Because we can do nothing about the natural causes, should we also ignore manmade causes that add to and exacerbate climate change? That seems to be her point that we should ignore the manmade causes because there are also natural causes.

2) They assumed warming was dangerous without considering any benefits. Or the benefits of increased CO2 or the regional variability of the impacts.
I believe that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees, it is dangerous. And I don't think anyone, even her, has listed the "benefits" of global warming. I'm sure there are some. I'm also sure the dangers and downside outweigh the benefits. But she ignores that part, the cost/benefit analysis to argue that because there are some benefits we shouldn't worry about the danger.

3) It was framed in an inappropriate way to support a particular political agenda.
Real science doesn't have a political agenda. The only time you see the two used together is when someone is trying to push a political point by using pseudoscience as she does.

That was just the first minute and a half of the video. I could go on and probably refute every point she is trying to make, but I have neither the desire nor the time. So, what I have pointed out must suffice to show that she is one of the outliers trying to ignore reality and substitute her own opinion, not that global warming isn't happening, but on the causes and impacts of it.

Additionally, I need to address this:

Her credentials on the subject go far beyond her advanced degrees.

Which is your attempt at an Appeal to Authority, an informal logic fallacy.

Appeal to Authority​

The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true.


Comshaw

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Ahh, I see. Retired = dead. And now the Einstein is dead nothing he did is worthy of note anymore.

You fucking moron.

I’ll point out that you didn’t answer the question. I’ll take that to mean you haven’t read any scientifically reviewed research on the topic. Thanks.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Let's start with the first few sentences she utters.
1) She states the issue of climate change was very narrowly defined by the UN and they focus on made man caused and ignored natural causes.

What can we do about natural causes? NOTHING! Because we can do nothing about the natural causes, should we also ignore manmade causes that add to and exacerbate climate change? That seems to be her point that we should ignore the manmade causes because there are also natural causes.

2) They assumed warming was dangerous without considering any benefits. Or the benefits of increased CO2 or the regional variability of the impacts.
I believe that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees, it is dangerous. And I don't think anyone, even her, has listed the "benefits" of global warming. I'm sure there are some. I'm also sure the dangers and downside outweigh the benefits. But she ignores that part, the cost/benefit analysis to argue that because there are some benefits we shouldn't worry about the danger.

3) It was framed in an inappropriate way to support a particular political agenda.
Real science doesn't have a political agenda. The only time you see the two used together is when someone is trying to push a political point by using pseudoscience as she does.

That was just the first minute and a half of the video. I could go on and probably refute every point she is trying to make, but I have neither the desire nor the time. So, what I have pointed out must suffice to show that she is one of the outliers trying to ignore reality and substitute her own opinion, not that global warming isn't happening, but on the causes and impacts of it.

Additionally, I need to address this:


Which is your attempt at an Appeal to Authority, an informal logic fallacy.

Appeal to Authority​

The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true.


Comshaw

1. Climate is influenced by natural influences and human activities. Climate science requires understanding the relationship.

2. You havent read or heard about any benefits of warming. Therefore you think there are none.

3. Yes. Science isn’t free. Government grants, tax policies, regulatory policies play a big role. Government allocation of tax revenue is political by design.

 

[Lazaran]

Let's start with the first few sentences she utters.
1) She states the issue of climate change was very narrowly defined by the UN and they focus on made man caused and ignored natural causes.

What can we do about natural causes? NOTHING! Because we can do nothing about the natural causes, should we also ignore manmade causes that add to and exacerbate climate change? That seems to be her point that we should ignore the manmade causes because there are also natural causes.

2) They assumed warming was dangerous without considering any benefits. Or the benefits of increased CO2 or the regional variability of the impacts.
I believe that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees, it is dangerous. And I don't think anyone, even her, has listed the "benefits" of global warming. I'm sure there are some. I'm also sure the dangers and downside outweigh the benefits. But she ignores that part, the cost/benefit analysis to argue that because there are some benefits we shouldn't worry about the danger.

3) It was framed in an inappropriate way to support a particular political agenda.
Real science doesn't have a political agenda. The only time you see the two used together is when someone is trying to push a political point by using pseudoscience as she does.

That was just the first minute and a half of the video. I could go on and probably refute every point she is trying to make, but I have neither the desire nor the time. So, what I have pointed out must suffice to show that she is one of the outliers trying to ignore reality and substitute her own opinion, not that global warming isn't happening, but on the causes and impacts of it.

Additionally, I need to address this:


Which is your attempt at an Appeal to Authority, an informal logic fallacy.

Appeal to Authority​

The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true.


Comshaw

It’s a thread started by BabyBoobs:

It’s an “appeal to authority” AND an “attempt at gaslighting” / “altering the narrative”.

BabyBoobs is terrified that the recent anthropogenic climate change fueled storms, fires, etc, will affect the election, because Democrats have been more prescient on the issue (like most issues) and have shown more leadership on the issue (like most issues).



BabyBoobs

 

[RobDownSouth]

lol. I would expect nothing less from you Rob. Ignore her credentials, skim a Wikipedia page, and comment without listening to the comment. Nice to see you stay on brand.

Something like 97% of the world's scientists accept the concept of anthropomorphic climate change, but there will always be slacked-jawed mouth-breathing sloped-forehead dingleberries such as yourself who want to foment chaos and demand we listen to the "alternate facts" of looney-tunes grifters pushing nonsensical counter-theorems.

We live in an age of disinformation peddling, and you've found your true calling in life, even if you haven't been able to monetize it to the extent the discredited "Doctor" Curry has.

She's a fraud, and you're a troll.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Something like 97% of the world's scientists accept the concept of anthropomorphic climate change, but there will always be slacked-jawed mouth-breathing sloped-forehead dingleberries such as yourself who want to foment chaos and demand we listen to the "alternate facts" of looney-tunes grifters pushing nonsensical counter-theorems.

We live in an age of disinformation peddling, and you've found your true calling in life, even if you haven't been able to monetize it to the extent the discredited "Doctor" Curry has.

She's a fraud, and you're a troll.

Dr. Curry is among the 97% you mention. Is there anything she said that you disagree with?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

1. Climate is influenced by natural influences and human activities. Climate science requires understanding the relationship.

2. You havent read or heard about any benefits of warming. Therefore you think there are none.

3. Yes. Science isn’t free. Government grants, tax policies, regulatory policies play a big role. Government allocation of tax revenue is political by design.

Warming doesn’t work that way. The planet is getting warmer, so we lose ice at the poles and have stronger storms in the tropics.

Where is warming not bad????

 

[deckardB26354]

Any points of disagreement with Dr. Curry’s comments?

Do you have any points of disagreement with what is extruded from Trump’s mouth? Because it matters not about what Dr. Curry has to say, if you believe in Trump, climate change is going to get a hell of a lot worse a lot quicker.

 

[RobDownSouth]

https://i.imgur.com/3XXgIVd.png

 

[Comshaw]

1. Climate is influenced by natural influences and human activities. Climate science requires understanding the relationship.

2. You havent read or heard about any benefits of warming. Therefore you think there are none.

3. Yes. Science isn’t free. Government grants, tax policies, regulatory policies play a big role. Government allocation of tax revenue is political by design.

) Please reread what I wrote and try to understand the premise. I NEVER said nor implied there WEREN'T natural and manmade influences to global warming. And I believe that the majority of scientist have taken the relationship between the two into account. However her statement was "...they ignored natural climate variability that was marginalized and they assumed warming was dangerous..." Climate change isn't dangerous? It has benefits? She is making the assumption through insinuation that climate change isn't dangerous and that it has benefit that out weigh the dangers. This assumption is in direct opposition to what the vast amjority of scientist believe backed by the data we have on hand.

2) You are correct in the premise that because I haven't read nor heard of any benefits from global warming, there are none. Which in actually I never said by the way. What I did say was: "I'm sure there are some. I'm also sure the dangers and downside outweigh the benefits."
However since you agree with and support her conclusion, I assume you have seen what benefits she's talking about. If so it is your responsibility to provide those to prove your point. Will we see them in a soon to be post?

3)I never said nor insinuated that science was free. I did say: "Real science doesn't have a political agenda. The only time you see the two used together is when someone is trying to push a political point by using pseudoscience as she does." Yes a lot of science is funded by government. But being funded by government and having a scientific conclusion shaped by government intervention is two different things. Most scientific papers are peer reviewed. Which assure quality and accuracy of the work. I haven't the time or space to ype out or paste the explanation so look here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/

Lastly, you have a habit of trying to morph my words (as corrected above twice) from what I said to what you want it to mean. Please don't do that.

Comshaw

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Sir, you err in title.

It is long past politics; the check is due.

The Religion of Climate Change, the check is in the plate.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

As it should be, science is a never ending debate searching for the truth. That's not the beef.

The issue is government intervention and essentially turning a scientific debate into a religious movement and declaring who's the faithful and who's apostate all the while rewarding their friends with tons of cash that seem to vanish with nothing to show for the effort. Even worse, the cash ultimately ending up in the hands of this nations enemies.

Everyone seems to forget, or ignore, that every one, EVERY ONE, of the high priests predictions concerning climate catastrophe have been wrong, wildly wrong.

Cleary, I agree with the sentiment expressed here.

The unholy unification of church and state: a state-sponsored region, feared and abhorred by the Founders.

If you run counter to the religion, then like so many things, they can do anything to you because, in the long run, you're going to hell anyway. What does I matter if right (ironically The Left) is the goal?

Rights, Rites, and the Right

God and Satan

and yet

who the fuck among us is the most proud of having vanquished religion if not the secular True Believer?

(Eric Hoffer: Mass Movements/Myself: Mountain-Sea Change)

[Hmmm..., mountain see change...]

 

[Rebel5soul]

Cleary, I agree with the sentiment expressed here.

The unholy unification of church and state: a state-sponsored region, feared and abhorred by the Founders.

If you run counter to the religion, then like so many things, they can do anything to you because, in the long run, you're going to hell anyway. What does I matter if right (ironically The Left) is the goal?

Rights, Rites, and the Right

God and Satan

and yet

who the fuck among us is the most proud of having vanquished religion if not the secular True Believer?

(Eric Hoffer: Mass Movements/Myself: Mountain-Sea Change)

[Hmmm..., mountain see change...]

They had to kill the old religions so they could fill the void with the state. (Any of this sound familiar?)

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Warming doesn’t work that way. The planet is getting warmer, so we lose ice at the poles and have stronger storms in the tropics.

Where is warming not bad????

- Longer growing seasons and higher yields in northern latitudes.

- New shipping lanes in the Arctic, such as the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage.

- Net reduction in climate related deaths. More deaths are caused by extreme cold weather than hot weather

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Do you have any points of disagreement with what is extruded from Trump’s mouth? Because it matters not about what Dr. Curry has to say, if you believe in Trump, climate change is going to get a hell of a lot worse a lot quicker.

As expected, you don’t have any points of disagreement and pivoted to a rant about Trump.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Sir, you err in title.
It is long past politics; the check is due.
The Religion of Climate Change, the check is in the plate.

A Perpetual Victim has entered the discussion.
First post butthurt rating is 40%
Odds of deflecting to "Time magazine predicted an ICE AGE back in 1973!" are currently 7:1.

Dr. Curry is among the 97% you mention. Is there anything she said that you disagree with?

Not any more, she isn't.
She was a card-carrying member of the climate change society until around 2010, when she fell down the denialist rabbit hole and sold her soul for denialist gold.
When her Wikipedia entry is peppered with peer criticisms such as "numerous 'strawman arguments' " and "shoddy research", you accept her "findings" at your own risk.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

A Perpetual Victim has entered the discussion.
First post butthurt rating is 40%
Odds of deflecting to "Time magazine predicted an ICE AGE back in 1973!" are currently 7:1.


Not any more, she isn't.
She was a card-carrying member of the climate change society until around 2010, when she fell down the denialist rabbit hole and sold her soul for denialist gold.
When her Wikipedia entry is peppered with peer criticisms such as "numerous 'strawman arguments' " and "shoddy research", you accept her "findings" at your own risk.

She says global temperatures have been rising for over a century and that rising greenhouses gases are contributing to that. There’s clearly a broad consensus on that. Are you really basing your argument on Wikipedia entries over her extensive volume of published peer reviewed papers? lol.