Climate 2016

This seems pretty shitty... this guy is 100% pro human caused climate change (not a denier in any way), but his work has been disparaged because it does not agree with the politicized messages promoted by the vast majority of climate change activists (including the O-man's team)... His research seems ligit... He is 100% onboard with the idea that human abuse of the atmosphere is causing climate change, but he won't promote a definitive link between the rising frequency and cost of weather related disasters as a result of climate change... currently there is no empirical evidence to support this finding.  He states that we should view these events as climate variations... we need about another 20 years of data before we can proof causality.

I read this piece... it's a quick read, and seems pretty straightforward to me:
The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change

Within this paper he quotes a couple of Obama speeches that clearly state false indications that the primary reasons for the extreme weather events we have seen over the past decade are definitively linked to climate change.  This could be true, but there is currently no scientific evidence to support this statement.  Essentially, the majority of climate activists have diminished the credibility of a large body of scientific research... the finding that have been routinely communicated by many in the climate change activism arena are basically fabricated.  

I believe in many ways this type of sensationalism hurts the cause much more than it helps.  It gives the deniers ammo, and basically opens the door to calling the message that is currently being promoted junk science.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr.

More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?

I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.

Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy signaled that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.

 

My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic

The heads of some mainstream scientific organizations criticized Grijalva’s letters. Margaret Leinen, the president of the American Geophysical Union posted in her AGU blog that in requiring information only of a few scientists, based only on their scientific views, Grivalja’s action was contrary to academic freedom: “We view the singling out of any individual or group of scientists by any entity – governmental, corporate or other – based solely on their interpretations of scientific research as a threat to that freedom.”[32] The executive director of the American Meteorological Society wrote in a letter to Grvalja that his action “sends a chilling message to all academic researchers,” and “impinges on the free pursuit of ideas that is central to the concept of academic freedom.”[33]

Conservative columnist Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, noted in an opinion piece that, "It’s not that he [Pielke] doubts climate change, or even doubts that it could be harmful. His offense is merely pointing to data showing that extreme weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, and droughts haven’t yet been affected by climate change. This is enough to enrage advocates who need immediate disasters as a handy political cudgel."[34]

Roger Pielke's Bio on Wikipedia


I am in no way a denier... I believe we should begin to shift focus and add additional emphasis on promoting the steps necessary to deal with the mas displacements that will take place when the climatological shit really starts to hit the fan.  

That was an awful long post to say that some guy agrees with human caused climate change, but doubts the link to extreme events.

I think the human caused climate change is the main problem that people will have to deal with in the coming years. Why waste time talking about other shit that's tangentially related?

For the layman like MC2 not use to dealing with the professional academic research community this is quite common. You see this in physics, and medicine all the time. Many main stream academics and their institutions base their careers and funding on certain theories and then fight to the death anyone who disagrees. The truth eventually comes out, but it can take years. I too am not a climate change denier, it is obvious that man's activity alters the climate. However, what the true effects are is not conclusive and how much of the current climate conditions are really man made versus the natural cycle of things. The real truth may be that there is nothing we can do about the climate other than to adapt our systems as we have done over the existence of man kind.

mattchuck2 wrote

That was an awful long post to say that some guy agrees with human caused climate change, but doubts the link to extreme events.

I think the human caused climate change is the main problem that people will have to deal with in the coming years. Why waste time talking about other shit  that's tangentially related?

You obviously completely missed the point... Stop letting your pussy-assed bleeding heart blind you to the reality of what's happening.

If I'm not mistaken, you are employed in a scientific field... you're a scientist.  This shit should piss you off.

My point: The "so-called" honest environmentalists (the guys that can do no wrong in your eyes... the "Good Guys") are playing the same game as the deniers (the Bad Guys)... they're fabricating a causal link that has not been empirically proven.  On top of that, they're actively vilifying the scientists that don't support their sensationalized position.  The O-mans Enviro-Gestapo have used Trump like tactics to destroy this guy's (and a few others) credibility.  

By doing this, they're diminishing the credibility of the existing legitimate science... it's counter productive... I think it also demonstrates the corruptness of the current administration.

Wake up... The O-man is not the Eviro-Angel that all the bleeding hearts make him out to be.



 

Energy conservation and renewables being a priority?

PeeTex wrote

For the layman like MC2 not use to dealing with the professional academic research community this is quite common. You see this in physics, and medicine all the time. Many main stream academics and their institutions base their careers and funding on certain theories and then fight to the death anyone who disagrees. The truth eventually comes out, but it can take years. I too am not a climate change denier, it is obvious that man's activity alters the climate. However, what the true effects are is not conclusive and how much of the current climate conditions are really man made versus the natural cycle of things. The real truth may be that there is nothing we can do about the climate other than to adapt our systems as we have done over the existence of man kind.

  Right on PT.  I'm in favor of shifting the message to include something like "there is nothing we can do to reverse this problem, we need to start preparing for the possibility of mass population displacement"... or something to that effect.

nepa wrote

  The "so-called" honest environmentalists (the guys that can do wrong in your eyes... the "Good Guys") are playing the same game as the deniers (the Bad Guys)...  

This^^

ScottyJack wrote

Energy conservation and renewables being a priority?

Of course... conservation, preservation, innovation.... always a priority.  Reality is very important too.  Good science is reality.  IMO: The good science is signaling that we are about to pass the tipping point.  For this reason, the reality is we must begin to at least start actively discussing the plan for adaptation to whatever eventualities lie ahead... mass population displacement could be very difficult to deal with without a well thought out plan.

If we don't begin to focus more on reality... as opposed to creating markets for solutions that will be marginally effective once the momentum of the imbalance really takes effect... we're doomed.

Think about the estimates associated with growth momentum of CO2 accumulation just 5 years ago... the results of what see now (the reality) indicates our problem is much more severe than we originally thought.  We have been underestimating everything.

Senator Sanders hit the nail on the head when he introduced the idea of Climate Change as a national security issue.  We're wasting time diplomatically jerking off because the Russians are cracking our systems (when we're doing the same thing to everyone else... x10 [have you heard of STUXNET?])... we should take a closer look at the threat to our security that is posed by our Biggest allie... Mother Nature.

Fully accepted the realities of climate change. Probably the biggest reason i chose not to procreate.  The best thing about 8 years of Trump will be the stupid will remain stupid and mother nature can blindside them fuckers

ScottyJack wrote

Probably the biggest reason i chose not to procreate.

No argument here... we need less people.  The climate change thing was at the top of my list of reasons for going childless too... I was also a bit fearful of what my seeds would actually produce.  I've abused my body over the years... it's highly probable that I would squirt out a bunch of genetic mutants.    

Same boat here. While my decision to not have kids has nothing to do with climate change, it has everything to do with me being too selfish.

campgottagopee wrote

Same boat here. While my decision to not have kids has nothing to do with climate change, it has everything to do with me being too selfish.

I don't think that selfish is really the appropriate word for your decision, it has a negative connotation to it. Knowing that it's not for you and not getting carried away with a moment isn't selfish, it's just being smart and doing what's right.

mattchuck2 wrote

Why waste time talking about other shit that's tangentially related?

Help me understand what we should be talking about?  The only thing I'm hearing from the environmental activists are one-dimensional assessments coupled with completely unrealistic solutions.

Should we helicopter drop a bunch cash on the masses?... perhaps we can consume our way out of the consequences associated with rising sea levels and mass extinctions?

Right. I'm a scientist and I know that academic work gets bastardized and distorted by people who have agendas. But it happens on both sides and there's not much we can do about it, especially when supposedly smart people like PeeTex blatantly lie to push said agendas, people like RA say that both sides are the same,  and people like Glade Runner say that no media sources can ever be trusted, from Fox News to peer reviewed academic journals.

My plea was for you to focus on the real problem (human caused climate change), not the tangentially related bullshit (extreme weather events). But you insist on arguing about the tangentially related bullshit. Weird.

nepa wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

Why waste time talking about other shit that's tangentially related?

Help me understand what we should be talking about?  The only thing I'm hearing from the environmental activists are one-dimensional assessments coupled with completely unrealistic solutions. Should we helicopter drop a bunch cash on the masses?... perhaps we can consume our way out of the consequences associated with rising sea levels and mass extinctions?

$1.00 a gallon gas tax, moratorium on new oil drilling locations, shift to natural gas as a bridge to solar/wind/hydro/nuclear, protection of public lands from development, commuters tax that encourages people from suburbs to move into cities (or alternatively, allow more dense development in suburbs), open space initiatives, bike infrastructure (including protected bike lanes), more mass transportation options, etc.

The solutions are out there. The "extreme weather event" problem you're concerned about is completely separate from anything and I wonder why you give a shit.

mattchuck2 wrote

The "extreme weather event" problem you're concerned about is completely separate from anything

Really?  Fabrication of facts by the "Good Guys" seems like a step a wrong direction to me.  

Just my opinion: It's too late for incremental solutions.  It's too late for slow progress.  As Scotty said previously, we're setting ourselves up to be blind sided by Mother Nature... and when it happens, we'll be grossly under prepared.  As I said in a previous post (which you probably neglected to read), Conservation, Preservation, and Innovation should always be high on the list of priorities... I'm also saying we should add Preparation to that list... and it should be very close to the top of the list.

Scotty and I could probably collaborate on an effective policy.  We need less people.  Mother Earth was not designed to support our lust for growth.  The Growth Mongers won't accept it, but I think we should start thinking about ways to shrink Global GDP.
 

mattchuck2 wrote

I wonder why you give a shit.

Trust me... I give a shit.  On a daily basis, I consume 7,000 fiber rich calories while engaging in 2 to 3 hours of intense cardio work   My metabolic throughput is off the charts... I probably give more shit on a daily basis than most people give in an entire month.

mattchuck2 wrote

$1.00 a gallon gas tax, moratorium on new oil drilling locations, shift to natural gas as a bridge to solar/wind/hydro/nuclear, protection of public lands from development, commuters tax that encourages people from suburbs to move into cities (or alternatively, allow more dense development in suburbs), open space initiatives, bike infrastructure (including protected bike lanes), more mass transportation options, etc.

The solutions are out there.

1.00 a gallon gas tax - agree, but that should extend to any fossil fuel. Unfortunately this is a regressive tax.
moratorium on new oil drilling locations - Partially agree
shift to natural gas - Maybe, Fraking is an abomination so IMHO this is not where we should place our bets.
solar - but not PV, at least until we figure out organic PV
wind - in certain areas only
hydro - yea baby
nuclear -  as fast as safely possible
protection of public lands from development - and even private forests and green spaces
commuters tax that encourages people from suburbs to move into cities (or alternatively, allow more dense development in suburbs) - I can accept that
open space initiatives - yes
bike infrastructure (including protected bike lanes) - yes
more mass transportation options - definitely a better rail infrastructure.
AND
Tax the crap (even more) out of big road trucks and encourage bimodal shipping options.
Force the legacy diesels off the roads, rails and every where else and move to tier 4 everywhere, NOX is way worse than CO2
Force onsite Methane and Benzene monitoring in all production facilities and even in agricultural plants, again - a much bigger issue than CO2.
I could list a bunch more, but these are the top of my list.
Its easy for the environmentalist to point fingers at CO2, but there are actually are bigger fish to fry here.

Oh, and don't even get me started on drinking water issues.    
 

nepa wrote

I'm also saying we should add Preparation to that list...

You mean preparation H?

nepa wrote

Really?  Fabrication of facts by the "Good Guys" seems like a step a wrong direction to me.

Fine, but know that people like Coach use that as ammunition for global warming denialism. I had a multi-page argument with him because he thought that right wing report from a few years ago about scientists "doctoring" data was real (it wasn't).

Not saying scientists shouldn't be better. They should. All experiments should be repeatable, all forecasts should be verified, and, if they are wrong, the models should be adjusted.

Just my opinion: It's too late for incremental solutions.  It's too late for slow progress.  As Scotty said previously, we're setting ourselves up to be blind sided by Mother Nature... and when it happens, we'll be grossly under prepared.  As I said in a previous post (which you probably neglected to read), Conservation, Preservation, and Innovation should always be high on the list of priorities... I'm also saying we should add Preparation to that list... and it should be very close to the top of the list.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you. And I don't think my solutions, or PeeTex's good addendums, are incremental at all.

Scotty and I could probably collaborate on an effective policy.  We need less people.  Mother Earth was not designed to support our lust for growth.  The Growth Mongers won't accept it, but I think we should start thinking about ways to shrink Global GDP.

Population growth in Western Europe, Russia, Japan is negative. The U.S. would be too, but recent immigrants are keeping it above 0 with high birthrates. Look at Japan in the last 15 years to see what that does to an economy.

mattchuck2 wrote

And I don't think my solutions, or PeeTex's good addendums, are incremental at all.

So the problem will be solved immediately by your suggested solutions?  I am by no means suggesting that there is a "Big Bang" solution to the problem, but with an issue as large as climate change, the results of any implemented solutions will be incremental.    

Realistically, at what point in the future can we expect to see widespread adoption and
substantive results from these solutions?  Roughly, when can we expect to see a restoration of atmospheric balance?  

As I have said in the past MC, I admire your optimism, but I think you're wearing rose colored glasses.

I'm not saying we should give up.  I am saying we should place additional focus on preparing for the worst.