Correlation, Causation, and Climate Change

[TrumpIsPresident]

You've convinced yourself that global warming and our role in climate change is hysteria. You've resisted the notion that you're wrong on the science, and claim that you're only talking about the political aspect. That's why people keep talking about science when you think you're talking about just politics. Because you aren't.

The hysteria is ...the hysteria. Like you quoted, its the stuff that precedes the taxes and regulation. Its the where "science" ends and agenda takes over and uses "science" as its facade. That's what I disagree with and I feel I've made that pretty clear. Can anyone educate me on how all this money turns into a solution? And then maybe an explanation for why all the loudest proponents for this taxation, regulation, wealth redistribution -whatever you want to call it-, aren't using their own money or resolving to live by the standards they believe the rest of us should be living by? Take the Solyndra scandal for example. Why was that tax payer money on the line in the first place? I'm not saying these people have to crack the atom on the first try but if they've got an idea on how to help then it seems to me the people who are most adamant about the problem should be the first ones to open their checkbooks, ya know?

[Endus]

You've convinced yourself that global warming and our role in climate change is hysteria. You've resisted the notion that you're wrong on the science, and claim that you're only talking about the political aspect. That's why people keep talking about science when you think you're talking about just politics. Because you aren't.

And more importantly, you can't begin to have a reasonable discussion as to political solutions until all parties can at last acknowledge the reality of the world we live in. You can't discuss how to design health care policy when a significant number of people deny that germs exist and insist that the only thing they will support is prayer meetings for the sick. You can't discuss how to design power networks when a significant number of people think electricity is a lie.

And while those examples are obviously ridiculous, climate change denial is just as ridiculous, and for the same reasons. It denies readily-observable facts. That's not how you start a political discussion, that's how you refuse to discuss anything, because you're insisting that everyone else accept your fantastical delusions as equivalent to reality.

- - - Updated - - -

The hysteria is ...the hysteria. Like you quoted, its the stuff that precedes the taxes and regulation. Its the where "science" ends and agenda takes over and uses "science" as its facade. That's what I disagree with and I feel I've made that pretty clear. Can anyone educate me on how all this money turns into a solution?

Well, it's hard, because there is no "money". Taxes go into a pool. Taxes on things like fossil fuels are meant to offset the damage those products cause through their use. Because it's not fair to allow people to abusively damage the environment for everyone else without paying to offset that damage. So the "taxes" you're complaining about aren't a money grab; they're just asking people to pay for the damage they cause. Hardly the issue you make it out to be.

And while that does generate some revenue, it has to be used to mitigate that damage, and it often falls well short, even so.

As for specific examples of this;

Green energy implementation, to make transfers to renewables more feasible at an earlier date (they're worth changing over to, fiscally, but you need funding up front to pay for it. Protection measures in coastal or riverine cities to protect against increased flood risks. Studies to establish exactly what these threats are and where measures need to be focused at the local level (I've done some of this work myself). Implementing programs to establish greener policies throughout an urban center to mitigate some of these issues in a secondary sense, like green roofing or green stormwater retention systems. I could keep going. There's a lot of this stuff, and a lot of it makes sense without climate change, though it also helps in adaptation.

And then maybe an explanation for why all the loudest proponents for this taxation, regulation, wealth redistribution -whatever you want to call it-, aren't using their own money or resolving to live by the standards they believe the rest of us should be living by?

Because this is a nonsense argument for two reasons.

First, the people you mention aren't the "loudest", they're just the people you choose to focus on, because you want to cherry-pick someone you can hate.

Second, they often are using their own money. And nobody's really talking about lowering standards of living. We're typically talking about increasing them. If you mean the garbage about flying in airplanes, nobody's trying to ground airplanes. So that's just a straight-up straw man you've invented.

Take the Solyndra scandal for example. Why was that tax payer money on the line in the first place? I'm not saying these people have to crack the atom on the first try but if they've got an idea on how to help then it seems to me the people who are most adamant about the problem should be the first ones to open their checkbooks, ya know?

Because that wasn't a "scandal" at all. Solyndra was one of dozens of companies that got funding. The vast majority of companies in that program were successful, and the program started turning a net profit way back in 2014, just two years after Solyndra went bankrupt. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-do...e=domesticNews

The government's investment program was a wild success. There was no "scandal". Just the fact that not every company will make it. The success rate of the DOE loan program was comparatively high compared to bank loan programs run for profit. There's nothing "bad" to be found there. Just a single datum you take out of context to blatantly misrepresent a government program.

[TrumpIsPresident]

A
Well, it's hard, because there is no "money". Taxes go into a pool. Taxes on things like fossil fuels are meant to offset the damage those products cause through their use. Because it's not fair to allow people to abusively damage the environment for everyone else without paying to offset that damage. So the "taxes" you're complaining about aren't a money grab; they're just asking people to pay for the damage they cause. Hardly the issue you make it out to be.

And while that does generate some revenue, it has to be used to mitigate that damage, and it often falls well short, even so.

As for specific examples of this;

Green energy implementation, to make transfers to renewables more feasible at an earlier date (they're worth changing over to, fiscally, but you need funding up front to pay for it. Protection measures in coastal or riverine cities to protect against increased flood risks. Studies to establish exactly what these threats are and where measures need to be focused at the local level (I've done some of this work myself). Implementing programs to establish greener policies throughout an urban center to mitigate some of these issues in a secondary sense, like green roofing or green stormwater retention systems. I could keep going. There's a lot of this stuff, and a lot of it makes sense without climate change, though it also helps in adaptation..

Thank you for typing all that out. That's what I was looking for.

[elodea]

And tell me, why is it that you and other conservatives don't have solutions? Because you either don't think there's a problem or you don't want there to be a problem. Denial or ignorance of the science is at the very heart of trying to cast this as a left/right issue.

Who said conservatives don't have solutions? They just don't think the solutions should come from government for a variety of reasons. If an investment only makes fiscal sense if you can force people to pay for it with guns, perhaps that isn't an investment you should be making. Please understand that different, yet credible values are being fought for on both sides.

I used to hold to anthro climate change but it's taken on the character of religious dogma especially within the public sphere, which is directly antithetical to the scientific method. I don't like religious dogma and the world would be a better place if we questioned it strongly wherever it arises. If you actually look at the science objectively, there are credible reasons to question the scale of the problem. Most everyone understands that co2 has a green house effect via infrared absorbtion but what is the effect coefficient? Is it big or small?

Off the top of my head, here are some of the things that changed my mind when i looked into it.

1. All the predictive climate models i know of have been wildly inaccurate. This isn't to say that the hypothesis is bunk, only that our current understanding of the role of co2 in climate isn't as rock solid as the public is led to believe. There are plenty of good reasons to go renewables or nuclear, but ACC just doesn't seem to be one of them.
2. Ice core records like vostok show co2 as a lagging indicator. To wit, there is no strong evidence supporting the hypothesis that co2 is a significant causal factor in climate. There just doesn't seem any way around this.
3. Historical warm periods have always coincided with an explosion of life, and vice versa for cold periods. Cretaceous explosion, Roman warm period, Medieval warm period that ended the dark ages etc. Where we do not see flourishing is when the temperature is cold.
4. Temperature/co2 graphs often touted have very short timeframes that distort context. Ofcourse temperatures are going to see a rise if we set our baseline at the most recent ice age/temperature bottom. We were already coming out of that before the industrial revolution.
5. Earth has been warmer before and we did just fine. Parts of greenland now under ice used to be forested and occupied by viking settlers. Even the poles used to ice free sub tropical climates during the Eocene.
6. In the 60-70's the big scare was global cooling. Even if we assume that co2 is a strong factor, there are credible arguments that our footprint has actually helped to stave off relapse into another ice age.
7. Even assuming strong causation, what exactly is the big problem with a few degrees of temperature increase? Sea levels will rise but it's not like they havn't risen before. There are many ancient ruins and cities underwater off the coast from just a few thousand years ago yet here we are today. The english channel wasn't always underwater. Just don't buy waterfront property.

Taxes on things like fossil fuels are meant to offset the damage those products cause through their use. Because it's not fair to allow people to abusively damage the environment for everyone else without paying to offset that damage. So the "taxes" you're complaining about aren't a money grab; they're just asking people to pay for the damage they cause. Hardly the issue you make it out to be.

Fine in theory, but not only is it unfeasible in practice, it doesn't match reality. Identifying carbon emitters is easy enough, but how do you identify the individuals who are affected by said emissions, let alone grade them on a scale.

Even if you solved that problem, you still have the problem trying to produce justice through taxation set by elected officials instead of through a court system. How anyone still thinks politicians are remotely interested in justice and not in their own self-interest and those of their monied donors is a mystery to me. What is the fair price for emitting a 1 ton of carbon?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Fine in theory, but not only is it unfeasible in practice, it doesn't match reality. Identifying carbon emitters is easy enough, but how do you identify the individuals who are affected by said emissions, let alone grade them on a scale.

I find it weird that people believe that because THEY personally can't imagine how it's done, it means that nobody else has figured out how to do it. In reality, we already know how to measure and identify everything that people have doubts about.

Declaring that "we don't know how to identify and measure <thing about climate change or carbon sequestration policy>" because you personally don't know how it's done is more than just being deliberately ignorant.

[Jessicka]

Fine in theory, but not only is it unfeasible in practice, it doesn't match reality. Identifying carbon emitters is easy enough, but how do you identify the individuals who are affected by said emissions, let alone grade them on a scale.

Even if you solved that problem, you still have the problem trying to produce justice through taxation set by elected officials instead of through a court system. How anyone still thinks politicians are remotely interested in justice and not in their own self-interest and those of their monied donors is a mystery to me. What is the fair price for emitting a 1 ton of carbon?

This is in part why I think it should be paid for through government investment, not through general taxation and spending. The whole point is that ultimately, the cleaner new technologies will pay for themselves anyway in the long term by reducing the need to spend on mitigation for the problems caused by prolonging the use of old technology.

[Endus]

Who said conservatives don't have solutions? They just don't think the solutions should come from government for a variety of reasons. If an investment only makes fiscal sense if you can force people to pay for it with guns, perhaps that isn't an investment you should be making. Please understand that different, yet credible values are being fought for on both sides.

I used to hold to anthro climate change but it's taken on the character of religious dogma especially within the public sphere, which is directly antithetical to the scientific method. I don't like religious dogma and the world would be a better place if we questioned it strongly wherever it arises. If you actually look at the science objectively, there are credible reasons to question the scale of the problem. Most everyone understands that co2 has a green house effect via infrared absorbtion but what is the effect coefficient? Is it big or small?

Off the top of my head, here are some of the things that changed my mind when i looked into it.

1. All the predictive climate models i know of have been wildly inaccurate. This isn't to say that the hypothesis is bunk, only that our current understanding of the role of co2 in climate isn't as rock solid as the public is led to believe. There are plenty of good reasons to go renewables or nuclear, but ACC just doesn't seem to be one of them.

This is just flat-out wrong. The models have been accurate, and increasingly so as we get better data.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

The few times when models are "off", it's typically because they were based on a particular assumption that didn't hold true. For instance, the most recent IPCC AR5 used three breakdowns for long-term climate projections, with varying levels of changes to human emissions; obviously, human emissions are going to be closer to one of the three, but that doesn't make the other two "wrong", they're just based on assumptions that didn't hold true, and were part of a set where another item covered what actually happened.

Ice core records like vostok show co2 as a lagging indicator. To wit, there is no strong evidence supporting the hypothesis that co2 is a significant causal factor in climate. There just doesn't seem any way around this.

While technically true, it just misses the point entirely;
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2...emperature.htm

CO2 was a supplementary factor in ice age warming trends, but not the initiating factor. As warming occurred, CO2 was released and further accelerated the warming, but it didn't trigger that initial warming.

Meanwhile, we have TONS of data that DO confirm that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's been a confirmed and quantifiable factor for well over a century.

Historical warm periods have always coincided with an explosion of life, and vice versa for cold periods. Cretaceous explosion, Roman warm period, Medieval warm period that ended the dark ages etc. Where we do not see flourishing is when the temperature is cold.

Those "warm periods" were hundreds of thousands to millions of years in length, at a minimum. Rapid climatic shift kills biodiversity, regardless of the direction of that shift. Rapid cooling on the scale we're seeing warming would quite possibly be worse, but that's not really a relevant point to anything.

Temperature/co2 graphs often touted have very short timeframes that distort context. Ofcourse temperatures are going to see a rise if we set our baseline at the most recent ice age/temperature bottom. We were already coming out of that before the industrial revolution.

Considering we're talking about a warming trend that's only existed over the last century, and which dwarfs any identified natural warming trend from prehistory, time scales in the thousands of years are pretty standard. And we have plenty of analyses which look further.

Plus, the interglacial period we're in is coming to an end, not beginning. Interglacials in the Quaternary have lasted typically 15-20,000 years. The current interglacial started about 15,000 years ago. We were "coming out of it" before human civilization emerged in any identified form.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Earth has been warmer before and we did just fine. Parts of greenland now under ice used to be forested and occupied by viking settlers. Even the poles used to ice free sub tropical climates during the Eocene.

Greenland was never all that hospitable to settlement; it was marginally better during the Medieval warm period, but that was regional, not global. And the issue isn't that life on the planet is at risk, it's that the stable climates that human society is predicated upon are at risk.

In the 60-70's the big scare was global cooling. Even if we assume that co2 is a strong factor, there are credible arguments that our footprint has actually helped to stave off relapse into another ice age.

As to global cooling, that's just wrong, it was never the consensus view, just a "what-if" by a handful of scientists that some members of the media presented more strongly than they should have; http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

And while we're "staving off an ice age" with the warming, ice ages take tens of thousands of years to cool down. It's like saying you're keeping the house warm when temperatures drop outside, by setting fire to it. Sure, the house IS warmer, but that's not a good thing.

Even assuming strong causation, what exactly is the big problem with a few degrees of temperature increase? Sea levels will rise but it's not like they havn't risen before. There are many ancient ruins and cities underwater off the coast from just a few thousand years ago yet here we are today. The english channel wasn't always underwater. Just don't buy waterfront property.

That waterfront property is already developed, in most cases. And most of those ruins demonstrate the risk we're talking about, though their flooding was more due to land sublimation than sea level rise. The tectonic plates we're on aren't technically stable; some parts are rising and others are sinking.

Fine in theory, but not only is it unfeasible in practice, it doesn't match reality. Identifying carbon emitters is easy enough, but how do you identify the individuals who are affected by said emissions, let alone grade them on a scale.

You don't. Because it's a global impact, so you apply solutions broadly, not individually.

Even if you solved that problem, you still have the problem trying to produce justice through taxation set by elected officials instead of through a court system. How anyone still thinks politicians are remotely interested in justice and not in their own self-interest and those of their monied donors is a mystery to me. What is the fair price for emitting a 1 ton of carbon?

This isn't even an argument, it's just complaining that politicians are all "corrupt" with zero evidence to support that.

[Bumbasta]

Read a green new history of the world by ponting. It will leave you completely depressed of how humanity acts but at least it will make you aware of the problems.