Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[bleeding heart]

Well it really depends on the context. In this case the context was a choice between "very great danger", "moderate danger" and "little danger". The "very great danger" option was rejected by 59% of respondents which repudiates the more extreme views.

The dictionary definition of moderate is:

I think my characterization of "not a serious problem" is consistent with the definition of the word "moderate".

But connotatively, the meaning shifts in subtle but important ways--precisely according to "context," which interestingly is your argument.

Because the word is a qualifier to "dangerous," the qualified word profoundly affects the connotation of the qualifier. That's just grammar.

Otherwise, they would use "not very", or "not especially" rather than "moderately."

For example, summoning too from the dictionary definitions, a "moderately well-established hypothesis" does not connote "not very"; it conntes "imperfect" but, unequivocally, very real.

Put another way, and this is the way the word is quite obviously being used here: If there is a "moderate" chance that you'll get in a car accident today, you'd have to be suicidal to go at all. In this context, it doesn't mean "not much of a chance."

No one would ever use "moderately dangerous" to mean "not very dangerous." No one.

Edited October 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Moonbox]

Why do you continue to take utter glee in presuming to denigrate the climate fund? Just answer the question - once and for all. Just answer it.

Because the Climate Fund is a backwards-looking, misguided waste of funds directed more towards 'feel good' outcomes instead of actual results. Spending billions in countries that, relatively speaking, aren't even part of the problem doesn't reduce our overall emissions. The fact that many of these countries are veritable 'black holes' when it comes to development aid makes it worse.

$100B/year could be better spent on clean and renewable energy research. These are things that could actually REDUCE emissions moving forward. For $100B annually we could duplicate the Manhattan Project in terms of scale and resources and make Fusion Power a reality.

[waldo]

ROTFL. The survey I quoted IS the infamous "97% of scientists say..." survey. You are criticizing the same survey you are quoting! Do some research for once.

But I guess truth and accuracy is not an issue when you have a propaganda war to win.

your chuckle-fest belies your own "survey says" puffery... your linked survey is but one of several studies that fit within the oft quoted 95 to 98% figure; eg. Anderegg et al - 97-98%; Doran & Zimmerman - 97%. In fact, your linked survey isn't even the first to bring forward the 97% result.

in any case, the Anderegg et al study was actually a formal 2010 PNAS published paper... one that predates the actual formal 2011 publishing of your linked survey in the, "International Journal of Public Opinion Research"... oh my, TimG... c'mon... this is a Journal within the Social Sciences category of Oxford Journals. I'm not intending to cast aspersion toward your linked survey's eventual published journal appearance, but, but... TimG... aren't you one of the guys who has forever cast the "social sciences" as, "pseudo-science". Oh my!

[waldo]

I take offense to being called a "denier"

When you use this word to address me it is insulting and dehumanizing and I am kindly asking you to stop using such terminology when addressing me.

If you continue to do so then I will report you!

although you are replying to another poster, also calling you a denier, as I also label you... a denier... let me take the liberty:

the label denier is not insulting, dehumanizing, derogatory... it is an accepted label that simply categorizes you within a belief/understanding construct - nothing more, nothing less. There has been no shortage of discussion on this in prior, long dated, MLW threads. Today, only neophytes bring forward objection to the use of the innocuous denier label.

[waldo]

I'm reporting you for being condescending, disrespectful, and dehumanizing to me.

whaaa... that's going to sting!

[WIP]

93% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. Like gravity and evolution it is real. Also, we already do have the technology and money to generate clean energy and cut emissions. When factoring in the real costs of fossil fuel derived energy, clean sources are already cheaper. Just simply switching $1 trillion in annual world subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy and retrofit projects would put us well on our way to success.

It would be a big help, but that wouldn't solve the climate change and other related environmental problems by itself; because unless we change the way our economy functions - primarily the aspects that reward growth for the sake of growth, cleaner energy sources will not be the permanent fix.

I've noticed since I started exploring environment issues that there is a divide developing among environmentalists that is best described as Big Green - the green capitalist movement that wants to build lots of windmills and solar panels, backed by some large financial interests (though not as large as oil!) and Deep Green - the radicals who are mostly anticapitalist and therefore mostly unfunded and unacknowledged in the corporate media, who try to emphasize the role that technology and increasing energy and resource demands have on the environment.

So, I think it's great to build windmills. But that should not be treated as anything like a permanent fix since no alternative energy proposals (except for stuff that will never happen like fusion power) can provide the baseload and continuous power to replace existing nuclear, coal and gas-fired systems. And that doesn't even address the problem of how alternative energy proposals are going to power billions of cars on the roads and highways.

So, it seems to me that a real solution will have to incorporate both renewable energy sources and a radical shift in the way our economy works. And that shift is what the deniers most fear, and what Big Green has been trying to deny ever since Al Gore discovered global warming! Their buzzwords like Sustainable Growth are just meaningless phrases that are to language what junk food is to nutrition!

[TimG]

No one would ever use "moderately dangerous" to mean "not very dangerous." No one.

But that is not what I said. Used the words "not very serious". I interpreted it to "moderately dangerous" to mean a concern but not something that required panic or any sort of extraordinary measures. One can be concerned about something without believing it is serious.

[TimG]

that some 80,000 people may never be allowed to return to their homes seems a wee bit more than a inconvenience to me.

The evacuation was a result of an irrational and non-scientific fear of radiation. If it is a problem it is an imaginary problem that was created by environmentalist panic mongers - it was not a problem caused by nuclear power itself.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/09/21/lawrence-solomon-evacuation-a-worse-killer-than-radiation/

According to many nuclear experts, most of those 90,000 should never have been evacuated — radiation levels not only didn’t approach what are known as lethal doses, making them immediate threats, the radiation also didn’t approach levels that should ring alarm bells. A calculation by Richard Wilson, professor of physics emeritus at Harvard University, in Evacuation Criteria After A Nuclear Accident: A Personal Perspective, soon to be published by the International Dose-Response Society, finds that releases of Fukushima radioactivity last year that were presented as scary were anything but.

Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

you really need to step up and answer the direct question put to you previously, several times now - the one you repeatedly ignored. Again, you made statements speaking to the need for an emissions treaty... one with 'forceful teeth' (your words, or my paraphrase of). As I stated, to me, this obviously has you acknowledging the need for emissions reduction. I asked how you could acknowledge this point/need, yet allow yourself to shit upon the separate secondary route intended to address the outcome of what you acknowledge. Why do you continue to take utter glee in presuming to denigrate the climate fund? Just answer the question - once and for all. Just answer it.

Because the Climate Fund is a backwards-looking, misguided waste of funds directed more towards 'feel good' outcomes instead of actual results. Spending billions in countries that, relatively speaking, aren't even part of the problem doesn't reduce our overall emissions. The fact that many of these countries are veritable 'black holes' when it comes to development aid makes it worse.

$100B/year could be better spent on clean and renewable energy research. These are things that could actually REDUCE emissions moving forward. For $100B annually we could duplicate the Manhattan Project in terms of scale and resources and make Fusion Power a reality.

no - your assessment is wrong/misguided. As has been pointed out to you, several times now, the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund is intended to deal with both adaptation and mitigation needs for developing countries affected by the negative impacts of climate change. Your broad-sweeping and most generalized assessment is nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion... something you have no shortage of. You can take the same response I offered your compadre, MLW member, 'jgb'... he, as you, has "concern" over "black-hole" funding. As I advised, there is strict auditing/overview established for the fund; a fund with the highest of profiles and a fund that will undergo intense scrutiny in how monies are applied. Your "black-hole" funding concern is simply another red-herring.

[bleeding heart]

One can be concerned about something without believing it is serious.

And those who think something is "moderately dangerous" are indeed positing it as "serious." (Again, they'd never use the qualifier for the word "dangerous" otherwise.)

The only question, of course, is how serious...to that question, "moderately dangerous" gives us nothing much, either way.

Which is why I find it odd that you have interpreted it as you have.

[kairos]

Half of Great Barrier Reef lost in past 3 decades

Australia's Great Barrier Reef is a glittering gem -- the world's largest coral reef ecosystem -- chock-full of diverse marine life. But new research shows it is also in steep decline, with half of the reef vanishing in the past 27 years.

Katharina Fabricius, a coral reef ecologist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science and study co-author, told LiveScience that she has been diving and working on the reef since 1988 -- and has watched the decline. "I hear of the changes anecdotally, but this is the first long-term look at the overall status of the reef. There are still a lot of fish, and you can see giant clams, but not the same color and diversity as in the past."

To get their data, Fabricius and her colleagues surveyed 214 different reefs around the Great Barrier Reef, compiling information from 2,258 surveys to determine the rate of decline between 1985 and 2012. They estimated the coral cover, or the amount of the seafloor covered with living coral.

That overall 50-percent decline, they estimate, is a yearly loss of about 3.4 percent of the reef. [Photos of Great Barrier Reef Through Time]

They did find some local differences, with the relatively pristine northern region showing no decline over the past two decades.

...

Saving the reef

As for what can be done to save the reef, or what's left of it, some say reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is key. "International efforts to cap and reduce CO2 emissions are equally critical and must occur at the same time as cleaning up local impacts," said Les Kaufman, a biologist at Boston University who is part of an international consensus statement on climate change and coral reefs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57524285/half-of-great-barrier-reef-lost-in-past-3-decades/?tag=contentAux;mostPopular

[WWWTT]

I forgot to add... "buddy!"

Yes we are still buddies.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

although you are replying to another poster, also calling you a denier, as I also label you... a denier... let me take the liberty:

the label denier is not insulting, dehumanizing, derogatory... it is an accepted label that simply categorizes you within a belief/understanding construct - nothing more, nothing less. There has been no shortage of discussion on this in prior, long dated, MLW threads. Today, only neophytes bring forward objection to the use of the innocuous denier label.

Why are you replying to my comments?

Do you not understand I have no interest in debating anything with you here in this thread?

You constantly use terms that some here find offensive in name calling.

WWWTT

Edited October 2, 2012 by WWWTT

[WWWTT]

The burden of proof lies on you. If you want to claim that such funding organizations are biased, then it is up to you to provide positive evidence for your claim.

Actually you know what buddy,I've got a life.

I do not accept your definition of where the burden of proof lies.

And in a short time I'm going to do a much needed workout consisting of various stomach crunches and stretches.

Then I will practice more Chinese and do some other stuff around the house here.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

$100B/year could be better spent on clean and renewable energy research. These are things that could actually REDUCE emissions moving forward. For $100B annually we could duplicate the Manhattan Project in terms of scale and resources and make Fusion Power a reality.

Well said!

WWWTT

[Moonbox]

As has been pointed out to you, several times now, the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund is intended to deal with both adaptation and mitigation needs for developing countries affected by the negative impacts of climate change.

The measurement of the monetary impact of climate change on these countries is at best inaccurate and leaning more towards abitrary. I'd love for you to provide us some insight on how climate scientists are able to determine which % of hurricane/typhoon/drought/flooding disasters can be attributed to man-made climate change and which is just pure random weather patterns. Citations please.

As I advised, there is strict auditing/overview established for the fund; a fund with the highest of profiles and a fund that will undergo intense scrutiny in how monies are applied. Your "black-hole" funding concern is simply another red-herring.

I'm not sure about jbg, but my black-hole remark is not so much directed at fraud or misappropriation, but rather at this being good money chasing after bad. Much like helping out an incompetent relative with cash problems, throwing money from outside at Africa is going to have disappointing results. The money could be better used elsewhere.

[TimG]

The only question, of course, is how serious...to that question, "moderately dangerous" gives us nothing much, either way.

Again - the context matters. In this case people did not choose the word - they were chosen for them and they had to choose between "very great danger", "moderate danger" and "little danger" so the middle category is going capture a wide ranges of views. I don't think you can say the everyone in the moderate group believes it is a serious problem. I would concede that some people in that group do see it as serious. Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

The measurement of the monetary impact of climate change on these countries is at best inaccurate and leaning more towards abitrary.

citations please

[Moonbox]

citations please

LOL! Now who's cherry-picking quotations!?

Again folks, here's another example of waldo's favorite tactic: misdirection/redirection

We can boil down this sub-argument into the following:

Me: Nobody can accurately measure what % of weather related disasters are directly attributed to man made climate change. Waldo, clarify for us how climate scientists have determined this.

Waldo: Citation please.

Let me give you a quick lesson in basic logic, because you're clearly struggling. When you're arguing something, particularly when it comes to whether something exists or whether something previously happened, the burden of proof lies on the positive side of the argument. That's why defendants are innocent until proven guilty. You've probably heard that term before?

If, for example, I claimed that you didn't know how to speak Spanish, how would this argument be solved? You, it seems, would demand citations proving that you did not speak Spanish, but this is absurd. How could I prove that? The only way this argument could be solved is by speaking Spanish to me.

Similarly, I'm claiming that climate scientists, for various reasons I hope you can fathom, aren't able to accurately determine which % of climate-related disasters are attributed to man-made climate change. If this is not true, then please show us, because I cannot prove that something did not happen/does not exists. I had an idea of how your mind worked already, but your last post was just beautiful. You're not disappointing my expectation of chuckles.

[waldo]

The measurement of the monetary impact of climate change on these countries is at best inaccurate and leaning more towards abitrary.

I'd love for you to provide us some insight on how climate scientists are able to determine which % of hurricane/typhoon/drought/flooding disasters can be attributed to man-made climate change and which is just pure random weather patterns. Citations please.

The measurement of the monetary impact of climate change on these countries is at best inaccurate and leaning more towards abitrary.

citations please

LOL! Now who's cherry-picking quotations!?

Again folks, here's another example of waldo's favorite tactic: misdirection/redirection

We can boil down this sub-argument into the following:

Me: Nobody can accurately measure what % of weather related disasters are directly attributed to man made climate change. Waldo, clarify for us how climate scientists have determined this.

Waldo: Citation please.

Let me give you a quick lesson in basic logic, because you're clearly struggling. When you're arguing something, particularly when it comes to whether something exists or whether something previously happened, the burden of proof lies on the positive side of the argument. That's why defendants are innocent until proven guilty. You've probably heard that term before?

If, for example, I claimed that you didn't know how to speak Spanish, how would this argument be solved? You, it seems, would demand citations proving that you did not speak Spanish, but this is absurd. How could I prove that? The only way this argument could be solved is by speaking Spanish to me.

Similarly, I'm claiming that climate scientists, for various reasons I hope you can fathom, aren't able to accurately determine which % of climate-related disasters are attributed to man-made climate change. If this is not true, then please show us, because I cannot prove that something did not happen/does not exists. I had an idea of how your mind worked already, but your last post was just beautiful. You're not disappointing my expectation of chuckles.

wow! Nice meltdown... one that thoroughly showcases your monumental comprehension difficulties. Did you bold-highlight enough?

as shown in my re-quote of your post above, you make two statements:

- you make your second statement, state you'd "love" my insights... and then ask for citations

- you make your first statement, as a matter of unsubstantiated fact... I simply ask for citation to that end.

apparently, in the span of 5 minutes, you expected me to have ready citations in hand for your second statement. Apparently, in MoonboxWorld, it's fine for you to request citations but... you go off on a tirade when I simply follow your lead and make the very same exact request you made. Wow! Just wow!

look, I appreciate the waldo has you on edge over your recent citation kerfuffle... but really, if you're so prone to wig-out over another simple citation request, I'd suggest you take a break for a few days. Come on back when you're feeling less pressured, when you've had a chance to settle-down... calm yourself. Perhaps working on your citations, at your own measured speed, might help focus your mind. Do you have a close personal safety net? The waldo is concerned!

[Wayward Son]

Actually you know what buddy,I've got a life.

I do not accept your definition of where the burden of proof lies.

I figured that you wouldn't. Reality is ignored by many.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Wayward Son

[jbg]

Half of Great Barrier Reef lost in past 3 decades**************************

As for what can be done to save the reef, or what's left of it, some say reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is key. "International efforts to cap and reduce CO2 emissions are equally critical and must occur at the same time as cleaning up local impacts," said Les Kaufman, a biologist at Boston University who is part of an international consensus statement on climate change and coral reefs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57524285/half-of-great-barrier-reef-lost-in-past-3-decades/?tag=contentAux;mostPopular

Does anyone seriously think that emissions can be cut enough to reduce temperatures, even were climate change generated by humans?

[Guest]

Does anyone seriously think that emissions can be cut enough to reduce temperatures, even were climate change generated by humans?

Right. A big deal these days is just cutting the rate of increase.

Given that we just passed 7 billion on our way to a possible 16 billion by the end of this century, all of whom will want to eat and stay warm, and many of whom will want jobs and cars, actually reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere in any meaningful way seems a bit of a dream to me.

[Moonbox]

- you make your second statement, state you'd "love" my insights... and then ask for citations

- you make your first statement, as a matter of unsubstantiated fact... I simply ask for citation to that end.

That's so unbelievably dense I'm genuinely feeling sorry for you. Read my last post again. Your request for a citation was stupid on the most fundamental level.

apparently, in the span of 5 minutes, you expected me to have ready citations in hand for your second statement. Apparently, in MoonboxWorld, it's fine for you to request citations but... you go off on a tirade when I simply follow your lead and make the very same exact request you made.

You're requesting a citation proving the non-existence of something, namely the non-existent ability of climate scientists to accurately measure how responsible carbon emissions are for climate related disaster. This is monumentally stupid. It's like asking me to prove that aliens don't exist on another world, or that you weren't dropped on your head when you were a baby. It's not possible to prove their non-existence. Do you understand yet?

The only thing more pathetic than failing this basic test of common sense is that you still didn't understand after it was plainly explained to you.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

Does anyone seriously think that emissions can be cut enough to reduce temperatures, even were climate change generated by humans?

No. With the industrialization of the developing world, emissions are going to accelerate. That's why it's so critically important to be researching an alternative to fossil fuels. Instead we're wasting monumental amounts of money on idiotic endeavors like bio-fuels, immature solar technology and doomed-to-failure climate treaties.