US to Stay in Paris Climate Accord

[Endus]

And who controls the weighting of such variables? Human beings....so yeah my statement about cooking the books stands. Thanks for agreeing with me!

Straight bullshit. It could only be "cooking the books" if you could demonstrate that they had malicious intent, and were seeking to misrepresent the data.

Setting weighting based on your best analysis of conditions does not meet that standard, and you'll have to prove the malicious intent to make this anything but biased and deliberate, baseless slander.

Often times when discussing sea level rise with others they relayed to me that they always went with conservative projections from models. The "aggressive projections" were a what if worst case scenario but never taken seriously.

Different things entirely. And those sea level estimates are phrased as "we're convinced sea level rise will be at least X by date Y". Not that it will only possibly reach that. So you've failed to understand the argument completely, if you think this is somehow a defense; those statements include an admission that sea level rise could be significantly greater, but is unlikely to be less.

Any scientist worth their salt laughs at the idea of aggressive projections. You are better of throwing darts at a board at that point for accuracy and precision.

The "aggressive projections" in this case are "the world continues its emissions patterns as they have been evolving for the last several decades". It's a "we do nothing" position, not some crazy "we deliberately ruin everything on purpose" position.

Also trying to pass off to the general public aggressive projections as something worth showcasing is what makes the general public distrust scientists in general.

Only if said public is aggressively and willfully ignorant about scientific methods and refuses to educate themselves.

Which I admit is a possibility, but let's not blame the scientists for that.

- - - Updated - - -

Projections aren't a part of science. They're analytics. Reading your comments I suspect you think they are the same field.

Also that projections aren't predictions.

A model projection is basically saying "if these factors stay constant, and we change this factor by X, we should see results Y by date Z". It isn't arguing that those other factors will remain constant, that the changed factor will definitely only change by X, or that there may be some other unmeasured factor that emerges that renders all this irrelevant. None of that contradicts the model, and people who think it does don't understand modelling and its purpose.

[Vyuvarax]

Also that projections aren't predictions.

A model projection is basically saying "if these factors stay constant, and we change this factor by X, we should see results Y by date Z". It isn't arguing that those other factors will remain constant, that the changed factor will definitely only change by X, or that there may be some other unmeasured factor that emerges that renders all this irrelevant. None of that contradicts the model, and people who think it does don't understand modelling and its purpose.

Agreed. I think there's a lot of willful ignorance about models in order to not believe the scientific data they use. Allowing yourself to believe that one can invalidate the other allows a lot of people to keep their personal biases intact while still claiming they believe in science.

[Endus]

Agreed. I think there's a lot of willful ignorance about models in order to not believe the scientific data they use. Allowing yourself to believe that one can invalidate the other allows a lot of people to keep their personal biases intact while still claiming they believe in science.

Like, here's an example. If I say "if you drive your car at 50km/h at that wall, here's how much damage we predict the car would take", that's based on models. If you drive at 40km/h, then obviously, there will likely be less damage. If a wrecking ball drops onto the car as it smashes into the wall, the damage will be higher. If the wall is made of spikes, or cheese, that'll change the outcomes. None of that means the original model was a "lie" or "wrong". It means you've changed the circumstances.

When we're talking about the real planet, in realtime, we can't go back, reset conditions, and try again, which is why there's this impression that the models are "wrong", when what's really off is that conditions weren't as modelled for the entire time frame that the model was covering. Which nobody was expecting. Because that's not the purpose of the models, to begin with, in climate science.

[Orbitus]

I think you just made my point for me and you didn’t even realize it my friend.

No. I didn't. You think the an eclipse effects climate change? Are you ignorant?

[Endus]

No. I didn't. You think the an eclipse effects climate change? Are you ignorant?

I mean, it does reduce the solar radiation hitting the Earth that day. Same principle as orbital mirrors. But it's just one day, and the effect compared to the constant warming every other day is going to way outweigh the effect of this.

Which is already accounted for. Eclipses are pretty darned easy to predict, after all.

[Allybeboba]

No. I didn't. You think the an eclipse effects climate change? Are you ignorant?

And you actually think it affects the frequency and strength of hurricanes over a short term period. Do you really think the climate changed that much in 12 months?
We were predicted to have an above average season for hurricanes last year in the Atlantic/Gulf Coast region. When in fact it turned out to be a below average one. While this year was predicted to be a “very mild” season. And we see what we Mother Nature delivered to our doorsteps.
I am not denying climate change or whatever it is being called today is happening. It just didn’t cause these weather patterns.

[Skroe]

Except the US constitution requires consent of the Senate for treaties, not any and all international agreements. Your second post you quoted here is particularly weird. You say on one hand that Obama signing an EO is legitimate, but then complain about how no legal process means no legitimacy. And how legitimize its standing as a treaty. Except it doesn't stand as a treaty. Because it isn't. At least as far as US legal definitions are concerned.

So of course it doesn't need legitimization for something it is not. But lacking legitimization for something it is not does not make it illegitimate in general. And there was a legal process for it, appropriate for the type of agreement it is. Earlier in that post you also complained about how Obama signing the EO doesn't ratify it. Of course it doesn't. It's not a ratification by any stretch of imagination. Because executive agreements don't require one to begin with.

And the thing is, if all of this was so unconstitutional as you paint it to be, it could have been brought to SCOTUS. Because signing a treaty off as an executive agreement when it's in fact a treaty would indeed be a breach of the constitution. Yet no one challenged it. And all executive treaties that have been challenged on those grounds, weirdly enough, won the case in SCOTUS for not being treaties.

For all your complaining about this "urgency of now", do you think signing something like TTIP as an executive order would fly unopposed just because some president considered it urgent enough? Because I'm willing to bet it would crush and burn before you said "legitimacy".

Also, a final tidbit, due to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that US signed back in 1992, things like Paris Climate Accord wouldn't have needed the consent of US Senate either way.

You misunderstand. Maybe I wasn't clear.


The Iran Deal and Paris Climate Change Accord were structured as "executive agreements" explicitly because Barack Obama didn't think he could get them pass the Senate (more on that in a moment). But they should have been treaties. Their structure was that of a treaty. Their negotiation approach was that as a treaty. Other countries even ratified them as they do treaties. They were a treaty in all but name.

Yes, Obama as President, had the right to enter executive agreements. But agreements of a certain level of seriousness as a matter of principle should go through the formal process in order to be binding and legitimizing, and for protection of the deal. For example, in 2002 George W Bush wanted to agree to nuclear cuts with Vladmir Putin via a symbolic handshake and an executive agreement. Vladmir Putin, realizing that there would be nothing to prevent such an agreement from being renegged on later (and Russia having more to lose form that), argued it should be a formal treaty. The result was the SORT Treaty.

Obama made a bad gamble by having the Iran Deal and PCCA as executive agreements. He gambled that either (A) his successor would be Democratic and/or (B) they would be so far along that withdrawl would be complicated or impossible (for example the protacted process of "leaving" the PCCA, which will last until, surprise surprise, 2020). It goes hand in hand in a sense, with using Reconciliation to pass Obamacare. It's the exact same tactic: a short term "breakthrough" at the expense of long term assurance that the policy is executed. The Iran Deal, the PCCA and Obamacare are all notable in that the Obama Administration did nothing to even attempt to get a buy in from Republicans to pass it with broad support. They wanted an agreement structured a certain way, an unwilling to negotiate with the political opposition, they used legal, but let's charactize it as not-within-the-spirit of good faith and good governance, methods to press the agenda.

Now what Obama defenders claim is that "there is no way Obama could EVER get Republican approval for these things"... "they were against him from the start". Rubbish, and I can prove it. Obama just didn't want to do it.

NewSTART.

When START I was due to expire and the need for a successor in place, Republicans, particularly national security Republicans, were vocal about the shortcomings of START I, the lack of agreement with Obama's crazy nuclear abolition position, and the lack of a desire to see deep cuts in the arsenal. At the same time, our arsenal is aging and in need of modernization. NewSTART goes well beyond START I. It's a much bigger treaty than, at the start of the process, Republicans thought they could ever agree to. But Obama got the treaty ratified with Republican support.

How did he do it? He dealt. Hard. He had demands by Republicans regarding what was covered and inspections integrated into the negotiations with Russia. Demands that his administration, amazingly, got Russia to agree to. When it came time to pass it, he cut a deal with Republicans: they would vote on NewSTART and he would approve a far reaching, $1 trillion nuclear modernization plan. Everybody got something. Republicans got their modernization and frankly, screwed Russia hard (it's hysterical how favorable the treaty is to the US). Obama got his deep cuts and a legacy item. The US, broadly speaking, took Russia to the cleaners in the treaty.

The key difference between NewSTART and the PCCA/Iran deal in particular is that Obama involved Republicans early on, and made their demands part of a unified American negotiating position. It produced a better document, that, if whoever is President in 2022 wants, could easily be extended (should it be is another question). Obama did not do this with the Iran Deal and PCCA, on both accounts where frankly, he acted more as a arbitration judge between the world and "America" or Iran and "America", rather than an aggrieved party with interests of its own. For the interests of the United States, for example, the "ideal PCCA" would have been deeply unfair to every other country, and favorable to us. The best thing you can say about the PCCA, is that it is "not dis-favorable", which is a very different thing. The Iran deal, which involves security concerns, was even more offensive.

That's why Obama's actions lack legitimacy. When negotiating the PCCA and the Iran Deal, the rest of the world and the Iran Group, respectively, knew that they were negotiating with the Obama Administration, but where hedging their bets that they were negotiating with America itself. The Obama Administration was the point man of America, but not America, and by not following the legitimizing process - process and execution being the only things that legitimizes, lets be clear - that America would be bound to the agreements beyond Obama's tenure was always an open question.

And here we are, in 2017, and the predictable has happened.

Obama should be a lesson in what not to do, for future Presidents. If the United States is going to have an executive agreement about some kind of weapons sale or technology sharing... that's fine. THat's small potatoes. But if the US is going to enter something that could have profound strategic, security or economic implications, it must have the assent of the legislature. That was the founder's position, and that was the position Obama flagrantly violated. Not the first, but arguably the most offensive in modern times.

Now his supporters can justify it however they like. It doesn't matter. The intent of the founders is clear. The NewSTART example is clear. Obama supporters should ask why Obama didn't take the same approach he took with NewSTART with respect to the Iran Deal or PCCA would he have gotten the same agreement? Certainly not. But in his role as our point man for foreign policy, he advocates our unified national position, not his own. So the words for that would be "too bad".

[Mafic]

Your claim doesn't stand, however. Cooking the books implies malfeasance when it's far more commonly just error. Analytics are projections based on judgement of data. Human judgement can be wrong.

Projections aren't a part of science. They're analytics. Reading your comments I suspect you think they are the same field.

Who said anything about it being the same field? But a peer reviewed paper will have scientific data and projections generated from that data using a model.

To use an "aggressive projection" knowing the room of error is great and to pass it off to the public as "reliable" is borderline criminal in my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Straight bullshit. It could only be "cooking the books" if you could demonstrate that they had malicious intent, and were seeking to misrepresent the data.

This has happened way too often to simply brush aside. That is why scientist use conservative projections for that very reason which is even more important with public distrust of scientists at an all time high.

Setting weighting based on your best analysis of conditions does not meet that standard, and you'll have to prove the malicious intent to make this anything but biased and deliberate, baseless slander.

Public opinion and peers in the scientific community are not a court of law. Thus, it is not necessary to prove it above and beyond that malicious intent occurred. Either way you can't try to hide behind the curtain and exclaim it was just an "error" when you release it to the public and not add any qualifier to it. Also scientists do worry about showing up in court every so often related to their work. This is why scientists document everything they do with dates and use ink for this very reason.

Different things entirely. And those sea level estimates are phrased as "we're convinced sea level rise will be at least X by date Y". Not that it will only possibly reach that. So you've failed to understand the argument completely, if you think this is somehow a defense; those statements include an admission that sea level rise could be significantly greater, but is unlikely to be less.

No. When they say we're convinced sea level rise will be X by date Y it is not a certainty it will be that minimum. It could be greater than that minimum or below that minimum, but it is in the ballpark. Convinced doesn't mean 100% sure.

The "aggressive projections" in this case are "the world continues its emissions patterns as they have been evolving for the last several decades". It's a "we do nothing" position, not some crazy "we deliberately ruin everything on purpose" position.

The worst case scenario as I already pointed out.

Only if said public is aggressively and willfully ignorant about scientific methods and refuses to educate themselves.

Which I admit is a possibility, but let's not blame the scientists for that.

The ends never justify the means. Misleading the public never ends well and sows distrust with scientists. Regardless of how hostile or resistant the public is to the information that scientists offer. You can't alter your approach to try to arm twist the public to buy in to what is being showcased.

[Endus]

This has happened way too often to simply brush aside. That is why scientist use conservative projections for that very reason which is even more important with public distrust of scientists at an all time high.

No, it hasn't. It's only "happened" at all if you listen blindly to propaganda conspiracy sites that are lying to you.

Public opinion and peers in the scientific community are not a court of law. Thus, it is not necessary to prove it above and beyond that malicious intent occurred.

Until you've done so, you're just making up bullshit to slander people. Nobody should give made-up bullshit any credence whatsoever.

No. When they say we're convinced sea level rise will be X by date Y it is not a certainty it will be that minimum. It could be greater than that minimum or below that minimum, but it is in the ballpark. Convinced doesn't mean 100% sure.

For the most part, they use the 95% confidence interval. So while there's a 5% chance it'll be less, there's a 95% chance it'll be that or more. And if it's less, it won't be by much.

And this is all clearly explained, and if you weren't aware of this detail, it's because you weren't paying close enough attention to the source material.

The ends never justify the means. Misleading the public never ends well and sows distrust with scientists. Regardless of how hostile or resistant the public is to the information that scientists offer. You can't alter your approach to try to arm twist the public to buy in to what is being showcased.

Again, there is no "misleading the public" in this field other than by the deniers. The scientists are not engaging in such, and you making up bullshit accusations like that without one whit of evidence behind it is nothing more than malicious slander.

- - - Updated - - -

And you actually think it affects the frequency and strength of hurricanes over a short term period. Do you really think the climate changed that much in 12 months?

There's no short-term anything. The effect on North Atlantic hurricanes (which is basically a confirmed fact at this point, given how much data confirms this) has been escalating continuously for at least a half-century. Possibly longer, but that's as far back as satellite data goes (1970, specifically).

We were predicted to have an above average season for hurricanes last year in the Atlantic/Gulf Coast region. When in fact it turned out to be a below average one. While this year was predicted to be a “very mild” season. And we see what we Mother Nature delivered to our doorsteps.

You're confusing weather and climate, which demonstrates a gross lack of understanding of really basic concepts. This is like talking about physics and not knowing the difference between gravity and inertia.

I am not denying climate change or whatever it is being called today is happening. It just didn’t cause these weather patterns.

Because you're using the word "cause", which nobody's argued.

Is it making these storms more intense? Yes. That's confirmed.

[Allybeboba]

No, it hasn't. It's only "happened" at all if you listen blindly to propaganda conspiracy sites that are lying to you.



Until you've done so, you're just making up bullshit to slander people. Nobody should give made-up bullshit any credence whatsoever.



For the most part, they use the 95% confidence interval. So while there's a 5% chance it'll be less, there's a 95% chance it'll be that or more. And if it's less, it won't be by much.

And this is all clearly explained, and if you weren't aware of this detail, it's because you weren't paying close enough attention to the source material.



Again, there is no "misleading the public" in this field other than by the deniers. The scientists are not engaging in such, and you making up bullshit accusations like that without one whit of evidence behind it is nothing more than malicious slander.

- - - Updated - - -



There's no short-term anything. The effect on North Atlantic hurricanes (which is basically a confirmed fact at this point, given how much data confirms this) has been escalating continuously for at least a half-century. Possibly longer, but that's as far back as satellite data goes (1970, specifically).



You're confusing weather and climate, which demonstrates a gross lack of understanding of really basic concepts. This is like talking about physics and not knowing the difference between gravity and inertia.


Because you're using the word "cause", which nobody's argued.

Is it making these storms more intense? Yes. That's confirmed.

Hurricanes are very dependent on El Niño and La Niña patterns. El Niño affected the Incas. There is also evidence that it has affected coral reefs that are over 10,000 years old.

[rda]

Your claim doesn't stand, however. Cooking the books implies malfeasance when it's far more commonly just error. Analytics are projections based on judgement of data. Human judgement can be wrong.

Google Climategate. You will see lots of cooking for effect.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it hasn't. It's only "happened" at all if you listen blindly to propaganda conspiracy sites that are lying to you.

It happened and it is documented. See the emails where the fellow climate scientists tell each other to cut this graph on that spot because it goes down after and they don't want to show that the graph is going down, to take this series instead of that because it is "more characteristic" in that it goes up faster, etc.

I don't know for how long you have been in climate science, if you got there less than 10 years ago, I suggest you do the same googling as I suggest to Vyuvarax.

- - - Updated - - -

Because you choose to dismiss it, without knowing what it means. That's what deniers do.

You have openly admitted you are not willing to obtain new information on the topic. Ignored.

I didn't dismiss anything. Endus "linked" me the entire report and cited relevant sections in that report. I went into these sections and brought excerpts that say the same as myself. (If you are now yelling "cherry-picking", I invite you to post me text from these sections which illustrates what they are "really" saying better. You will quickly see that I did not cherry-pick a thing.) Since the sections have tens upon tens of sources cited, I then asked Endus which specific source from these sections he wants to discuss. To which he said nothing. The end. He linked me some other things, yes, some critique of the "deniers" and some general pieces. I was not sure if any one of them was actually his answer as to what he wants me to look into, and if the answer is that I have to look into all of them, then no, thanks, and I repeat again: let's take something specific, we can't reasonably discuss tens of papers at once.

Say what, you linked your NOAA paper and what did I do? Evaded? Refused to read it? Huh? No, I went right into your paper and showed you why I think it is certainly not an argument against what I am saying, and in fact is an argument *for* what I am saying. (Seriously, I could have linked that paper to Endus instead of the graph which made him lose his mind.) Now, did you maybe respond to that? No. You chose to accuse me of ignoring sources. The irony of me going into your source and writing a response, you ignoring my response and accusing me of not wanting to go into sources...

You are showing your huge bias, that's all.

- - - Updated - - -

And here is Endus talking about this:

You know the report cites sources, right? And don't tell me you're too lazy to bother; you've invested more effort in refusing to check sources than it would have taken to just check them in the first place.

Yes, Endus, I know that the report cites sources. Since there are many tens of sources in the sections you mentioned I asked you which ones of those sources you want to talk about. To date you didn't answer.

I am / was spending effort not to ignore the sources. I am spending effort asking you what specific of the many multiples of sources you "linked" you want to discuss. It is you who have been wasting everyone's time, not me. And you were wasting everyone's time because you are just shooting from the hip and you don't really know any of the specific sources you think you want to discuss, you have to read them yourself first and see which one says what's closest to what you have been saying. That's all.

Could you by the way, link me any of your papers? I would like to see what specific research you are responsible for. Because, I am sorry to say, but right now your image is that of some kind of an assistant who co-authored a couple of things with his professor and whose role was to do some housekeeping regarding the, you know, models. I am saying this because 90% of what you wrote was about the "deniers", not science, and the remaining 10% was so general, a layman could write it - you were basically linking big generic compilations of research and expressing your outrage that someone does not immediately bow and wants to go into the specifics.

- - - Updated - - -

Seen this line used a lot by Climate Change deniers. If a hurricane doesn't make landfall in the US did it really exist?

Just in case, you are talking about a line from NOAA. Where they explain that they analyse different things and a particular result is even more / less (depending on what you consider the result) visible on one of them.

- - - Updated - - -

And now, since someone in this thread better talks about some numbers for once, here is a reaction to the article that I linked earlier from a "climate scientist" like Endus:

https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/...-were-wrong%2F

"A quick reminder that, reports in British tabloids notwithstanding, climate model projections agree quite well with observed temperatures." <then a graph follows>

We'll put "British tabloids" aside (Nature / Times / Telegraph, LOL) and go straight to the graph. And it all appears fine and dandy to an untrained eye, but if you actually know a thing or two in this area you will realize that the fit looks good not because the models predicted this from the start and the predictions turned out to fit that well, no. The fit looks good because the graph was made some time in 2006 and the models have been able to observe the data that already happened. So, 2/3 of the graph is just the models "predicting" the past (which they have been calibrated to predict, that's called training). And the fit on the remaining part where they actually were predicting the future, fits pretty terribly and only doesn't fall out the confidence intervals because they are too wide for the amount of time that passed.



That's the essence of the shameful part of modern climate science that loves to talk about the deniers.

But as I said, things are slowly getting around to reality. Thankfully.

[Glorious Leader]

I mean, it does reduce the solar radiation hitting the Earth that day. Same principle as orbital mirrors. But it's just one day, and the effect compared to the constant warming every other day is going to way outweigh the effect of this.

Which is already accounted for. Eclipses are pretty darned easy to predict, after all.

Does that mean they could install orbital mirrors to mitigate?

[rda]

Does that mean they could install orbital mirrors to mitigate?

(You will die trying to get so many mirrors / deliver them to orbit, and the effects will be not what you want.)

[Endus]

Hurricanes are very dependent on El Niño and La Niña patterns. El Niño affected the Incas. There is also evidence that it has affected coral reefs that are over 10,000 years old.

The El Nino oscillation is a short-term variation, and isn't responsible for long-term changes in climate patterns over decades, which is what we're talking about.

Google Climategate. You will see lots of cooking for effect.

Climategate? Really?

You realize that literally a nutbar conspiracy theory akin to ranting about "chemtrails" or "illuminati", right?

There were multiple investigations and all of them confirmed there was no "cooking for effect" whatsoever. Whaat you're doing here is spreading malicious disinformation, nothing more.

And I use "disinformation", with a "d", very intentionally. This isn't "misinformation", which might be accidental. This is a deliberate and malicious attempt to manufacture lies to create false doubt.

I didn't dismiss anything. Endus "linked" me the entire report and cited relevant sections in that report. I went into these sections and brought excerpts that say the same as myself. (If you are now yelling "cherry-picking", I invite you to post me text from these sections which illustrates what they are "really" saying better. You will quickly see that I did not cherry-pick a thing.) Since the sections have tens upon tens of sources cited, I then asked Endus which specific source from these sections he wants to discuss. To which he said nothing. The end.

I didn't say "nothing", I pointed you back at that source material that you were misrepresenting. And as for your complaint that I presented you with too much evidence, that's laughable.

You absolutely did cherry-pick quotes out-of-context, ones which had no relevance to what we were discussing, in some cases. What you're doing is looking for a single sound bite, a single data point, and that is not how science works. You need to actually have an understanding of all of this, not dig through looking for an out-of-context quote that seemingly supports your desired preconception.

I don't want to discuss "a" source. I want to refer to the entire mountainous body of evidence that all piles up against you. Every single bit of it, all at once. Because that is how science works.

Yes, Endus, I know that the report cites sources. Since there are many tens of sources in the sections you mentioned I asked you which ones of those sources you want to talk about. To date you didn't answer.

Here's your answer. I want to talk about all of them. Because I have zero interest in cherry-picking data points to try and falsify a preconceived conclusion I'm manufacturing. That's dishonest manipulation of the facts, and I won't engage in it. When you try and do so, I will call it out for the deliberate attempt to mislead that it inevitably is.

Could you by the way, link me any of your papers? I would like to see what specific research you are responsible for. Because, I am sorry to say, but right now your image is that of some kind of an assistant who co-authored a couple of things with his professor and whose role was to do some housekeeping regarding the, you know, models. I am saying this because 90% of what you wrote was about the "deniers", not science, and the remaining 10% was so general, a layman could write it - you were basically linking big generic compilations of research and expressing your outrage that someone does not immediately bow and wants to go into the specifics.

My work's in policy, not science. But it's kind of hard to write adaptation policy if you don't understand the science upon which it's based, and don't keep yourself informed as the science develops and improves.

That I'm not a scientist myself just means I'm not the one developing this raw data. It just means that rather than dealing with the "what" and "why" questions, I'm focused on the "so what" question.

I could link you stuff, but it's all pretty damned technical and boring, and really doesn't matter, since I'd rather my position rest on the strength of the argument itself rather than from me trying to present some kind of false sense of authority. Which is basically what you're appealing to, here; an appeal to (your presumed lack of my) authority. Which is fallacious and irrational, I'll note. Par for the course; can't win the argument based on the facts, so try and slander me personally instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Does that mean they could install orbital mirrors to mitigate?

It's theoretically plausible, but it has secondary effects. Reducing solar radiation has impacts on plant growth, for obvious reasons. And that's without getting into the massive expense.

[rda]

Climategate? Really?

Have you seen or haven't you seen the materials? The investigations didn't find anything because they didn't search much. There were multiple commissions appointed because every one of them was showing the desire to put the thing down and say that they found nothing incriminating without actually digging - not interviewing the key persons, not asking the relevant questions, taking ridiculous answers at face value, etc. Eventually, things just settled down - mostly because the materials were made public and it was absolutely clear that there was a lot of garbage and dishonest tricks even if the commissions wanted to say that things are fine. That's all.

I didn't say "nothing", I pointed you back at that source material that you were misrepresenting. And as for your complaint that I presented you with too much evidence, that's laughable. [...] I don't want to discuss "a" source. I want to refer to the entire mountainous body of evidence that all piles up against you. Every single bit of it, all at once. Because that is how science works. [...] Here's your answer. I want to talk about all of them. Because I have zero interest in cherry-picking data points to try and falsify a preconceived conclusion I'm manufacturing. That's dishonest manipulation of the facts, and I won't engage in it. When you try and do so, I will call it out for the deliberate attempt to mislead that it inevitably is.

Cool, that's you essentially refusing to discuss anything specific again and pretending to want to discuss "it all", saying it directly. I don't want to discuss "it all", because no, Endus, that's not how science works. Discussing "it all" is actually not really possible. Maybe you are interested in discussing it at that level because that's all the level you can muster, but I am not interested in that, I want to discuss specifics.

You are pretending to want to discuss "it all" simply because, as I said, you don't know which sources you even want to discuss because you need to read them first and find the ones that support your position. You are basically hoping that since you heard a lot of things pointing one way without distinguishing too many details that your position adopted from the sporadic understanding of what you heard and generalized to the rest will find support in that mess of papers, somewhere. Science actually works differently, Endus. You first read the sources and then you have the position. In your case, you have your position and you think you will be able to find sources supporting it. That's all you are doing here.

My work's in policy, not science. But it's kind of hard to write adaptation policy if you don't understand the science upon which it's based, and don't keep yourself informed as the science develops and improves. That I'm not a scientist myself just means I'm not the one developing this raw data. It just means that rather than dealing with the "what" and "why" questions, I'm focused on the "so what" question.

OK, good, understood. I just heard someone say that you "do this for a living" and thought that means that you are doing climate science. You aren't, fine, and it is clearly seen in your responses as well, no offense, but OK, this part is settled.

[Endus]

Have you seen or haven't you seen the materials? The investigations didn't find anything because they didn't search much. There were multiple commissions appointed because every one of them was showing the desire to put the thing down and say that they found nothing incriminating without actually digging - not interviewing the key persons, not asking the relevant questions, taking ridiculous answers at face value, etc. Eventually, things just settled down - mostly because the materials were made public and it was absolutely clear that there was a lot of garbage and dishonest tricks even if the commissions wanted to say that things are fine. That's all.

This is conspiracy-theory level nonsense, not an argument. You don't have one whit of evidence to support the least bit of this.

I'm sure you believe that there's a grand global conspiracy colluding to conceal manipulated data from sources in every country around the world, all cooperating without any direct connections between them nor any evidence of any such collusion, and all for absolutely no benefit to any of those participating in this supposed fraud.

That's a ridiculous fantasy to everyone else, though. Because none of those elements are reasonable on their own, and putting them all together like that just makes it completely insane.

Cool, that's you essentially refusing to discuss anything specific again and pretending to want to discuss "it all", saying it directly. I don't want to discuss "it all", because no, Endus, that's not how science works. Discussing "it all" is actually not really possible. Maybe you are interested in discussing it at that level because that's all the level you can muster, but I am not interested in that, I want to discuss specifics.

No, you don't, you want to cherry-pick. That's explicitly what you're doing, here. That's exactly the method you're describing.

If there's something specific you want to ask about, feel free. Don't condemn me for not fallaciously cherry-picking as much as you do.

You are pretending to want to discuss "it all" simply because, as I said, you don't know which sources you even want to discuss because you need to read them first and find the ones that support your position.

This is projection. That's not how rational people approach an issue like this in the first place. What you're describing is cherry-picking, explicitly and in detail. It's not how scientific research is done. I'm refusing to cherry-pick, which means I'm refusing to do exactly what you're accusing me of.

Science actually works differently, Endus. You first read the sources and then you have the position. In your case, you have your position and you think you will be able to find sources supporting it. That's all you are doing here.

The problem is that you're refusing to read the sources.

[downnola]

No, you don't, you want to cherry-pick. That's explicitly what you're doing, here. That's exactly the method you're describing.

Doesn't this argument stem from the claim that climate change is making hurricanes like Harvey and Irma worse or more frequent? That claim isn't supported in the IPCC document you linked. 30 years of Hurricane data is not robust enough to make those claims with any real certainty, and factors like Atlantic multidecadal oscillation are obfuscating the data we do have. That's a big problem, because it could be hiding or exaggerating the effect climate change is having on tropical cyclones.

You can infer the effects climate change is going to have on Hurricanes just by understanding how moisture in the air and warmer sea surface temperature fuel hurricanes, but to connect localized events to long term trends requires more data than we actually have to prove. Yes, it is likely that climate change is making these storms more intense, but we might not be able to say that with any real certainty for quite some time.

I can understand using Harvey and Irma as a discussion starter for the urgency for acting on climate change. Even if the frequency of hurricanes don't increase, the damage they bring will. However, people should be cautious about the sorts of claims they make about storms that are happening today. Playing loose with facts is not a game you want to play with climate change deniers because they'll hang on every loose claim you mutter as some sort of evidence that you're not shooting straight. So my question to you is this; with so examples to pull from to demonstrate the urgency of climate change, and how it's impacting our planet now, why bother trying to claim certainty in areas where we're actually not that certain? To me, it seems like a waste of energy with little to no net gains on the topic.

[Allybeboba]

The El Nino oscillation is a short-term variation, and isn't responsible for long-term changes in climate patterns over decades, which is what we're talking about.



Climategate? Really?

You realize that literally a nutbar conspiracy theory akin to ranting about "chemtrails" or "illuminati", right?

There were multiple investigations and all of them confirmed there was no "cooking for effect" whatsoever. Whaat you're doing here is spreading malicious disinformation, nothing more.

And I use "disinformation", with a "d", very intentionally. This isn't "misinformation", which might be accidental. This is a deliberate and malicious attempt to manufacture lies to create false doubt.



I didn't say "nothing", I pointed you back at that source material that you were misrepresenting. And as for your complaint that I presented you with too much evidence, that's laughable.

You absolutely did cherry-pick quotes out-of-context, ones which had no relevance to what we were discussing, in some cases. What you're doing is looking for a single sound bite, a single data point, and that is not how science works. You need to actually have an understanding of all of this, not dig through looking for an out-of-context quote that seemingly supports your desired preconception.

I don't want to discuss "a" source. I want to refer to the entire mountainous body of evidence that all piles up against you. Every single bit of it, all at once. Because that is how science works.



Here's your answer. I want to talk about all of them. Because I have zero interest in cherry-picking data points to try and falsify a preconceived conclusion I'm manufacturing. That's dishonest manipulation of the facts, and I won't engage in it. When you try and do so, I will call it out for the deliberate attempt to mislead that it inevitably is.



My work's in policy, not science. But it's kind of hard to write adaptation policy if you don't understand the science upon which it's based, and don't keep yourself informed as the science develops and improves.

That I'm not a scientist myself just means I'm not the one developing this raw data. It just means that rather than dealing with the "what" and "why" questions, I'm focused on the "so what" question.

I could link you stuff, but it's all pretty damned technical and boring, and really doesn't matter, since I'd rather my position rest on the strength of the argument itself rather than from me trying to present some kind of false sense of authority. Which is basically what you're appealing to, here; an appeal to (your presumed lack of my) authority. Which is fallacious and irrational, I'll note. Par for the course; can't win the argument based on the facts, so try and slander me personally instead.

- - - Updated - - -



It's theoretically plausible, but it has secondary effects. Reducing solar radiation has impacts on plant growth, for obvious reasons. And that's without getting into the massive expense.

There has been sporadic cycles of strong El Niños over the last century however. One El Niño will be strong and the next cycle it will be weak. We just happen to be coming out of a strong El Niño cycle at the moment.

[Endus]

Doesn't this argument stem from the claim that climate change is making hurricanes like Harvey and Irma worse or more frequent? That claim isn't supported in the IPCC document you linked.

More recent assessments indicate that it isunlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major
hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North
Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in
the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the
1970s in that region.

Number isn't changing much. Frequency and intensity of the strongest storms, though, that's certain. It's right freaking there, and I've already quoted that excerpt once in the thread, so please don't pretend that it's not there.

To paraphrase the above; the total number of storms isn't changing. The number of strong storms is increasing, as is their intensity. Not more storms. Stronger storms.

30 years of Hurricane data is not robust enough to make those claims with any real certainty, and factors like Atlantic multidecadal oscillation are obfuscating the data we do have. That's a big problem, because it could be hiding or exaggerating the effect climate change is having on tropical cyclones.

More than 40 years, when this was published. And yes, it's plenty. As the IPCC report clearly stated.

We lack comparable data for other regions, which is why it's less certain a claim for those regions.

I can understand using Harvey and Irma as a discussion starter for the urgency for acting on climate change.

The AR5 was published well before this year's storm activity, so it's hardly driving anything I've linked.

So my question to you is this; with so examples to pull from to demonstrate the urgency of climate change, and how it's impacting our planet now, why bother trying claim certainty in areas where we're actually not that certain? To me, it seems like a waste of energy with little to no net gains on the topic.

Again, "virtually certain". Somewhere north of 99% certain, when it comes to climate change increasing the intensity of North Atlantic storms.

- - - Updated - - -

There has been sporadic cycles of strong El Niños over the last century however. One El Niño will be strong and the next cycle it will be weak. We just happen to be coming out of a strong El Niño cycle at the moment.

Which changes nothing. The oscillation is a short-term cycle, and isn't driving these things. This is all detailed in the AR5; see section 14.4. Conveniently titled "El Niño-Southern Oscillation". A sub-chapter all to itself; this is by no means excluded from these analyses.

[Allybeboba]

More recent assessments indicate that it isunlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major
hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North
Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in
the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the
1970s in that region.

Number isn't changing much. Frequency and intensity of the strongest storms, though, that's certain. It's right freaking there, and I've already quoted that excerpt once in the thread, so please don't pretend that it's not there.

To paraphrase the above; the total number of storms isn't changing. The number of strong storms is increasing, as is their intensity. Not more storms. Stronger storms.



More than 40 years, when this was published. And yes, it's plenty. As the IPCC report clearly stated.

We lack comparable data for other regions, which is why it's less certain a claim for those regions.



The AR5 was published well before this year's storm activity, so it's hardly driving anything I've linked.



Again, "virtually certain". Somewhere north of 99% certain, when it comes to climate change increasing the intensity of North Atlantic storms.

- - - Updated - - -



Which changes nothing. The oscillation is a short-term cycle, and isn't driving these things. This is all detailed in the AR5; see section 14.4. Conveniently titled "El Niño-Southern Oscillation". A sub-chapter all to itself; this is by no means excluded from these analyses.

This AR5?
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...FINAL_full.pdf