5 ms·

Consensus is not conclusive. It takes a special kind of hubris for someone to think they understand climate change with the minute dataset we have. We don't ha

Consensus is not conclusive. It takes a special kind of hubris for someone to think they understand climate change with the minute dataset we have. We don't have enough data to guess next month's weather let alone the possible effects in 10+ years.

oewfoewf 9y ago
Consensus enough that geoengineering countermeasure "proposals" (they've already started these programs decades ago) explicitly counter the mechanisms that only humans could have started.
orf 9y ago
> It takes a special kind of hubris for someone to think they understand climate change with the minute dataset we have. And an even greater hubris to ignore the pretty vast dataset we do have and go diametrically against the conclusions it suggests. It's also pretty funny how that greater hubris is exhibited mainly in a particular country, and a specific party in that country which has a lot of ties/donations from oil companies. Especially when other branches of the government are preparing for the results of man made climate change. Makes you think, doesn't it.
- dizzystar 9y ago
  In a certain state in said country, the majority of people are very much not a part of said party, recycle by law, and claim to live with minimal carbon footprint. They also prefer to buy gas-guzzling SUVs, use millions of gallons of water to maintain lawns in the desert, redirect water to their large population centers to do so, and line up to buy the new iThing each year (tossing out the perfectly good old one in the trash).
  - orf 9y ago
    > They also prefer to buy gas-guzzling SUVs, use millions of gallons of water to maintain lawns in the desert, redirect water to their large population centers to do so, and line up to buy the new iThing each year (tossing out the perfectly good old one in the trash). All whilst maintaining the third lowest CO2 emissions per capita. Incredible!
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    I’m seriously trying to figure out what state you are talking about. Definitely not California (cities aren’t very near the desert, even Los Angeles is in a semi humid basin), Arizona doesn’t have lawns mostly, Utah SLC wouldn’t really qualify as desert either. So then I thought you might mean Saudi Arabia?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Definitely not California (cities aren’t very near the desert The coastal cities aren't, but the southern central valley cities (Bakersfield, notably) are in the desert.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Sure, but that isn’t many of them. A drive through the desert finds it is mostly unpopulated. Definitely “desert” doesn’t define most of California’s population, it isn’t related to the Bay Area, Sacramento, etc.... You can find a list of California’s largest desert cities at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_of_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_of_California, and it’s pretty marginal. Note Bakersfield isn’t even on that list.
        seandougall 9y ago
        A drive through the desert looks very different if you don’t take the 5.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        I’ve taken highway 395 all the way from LA to Susanville (afterwards took an even more obscure highway to crater lake). Very nice drive if you can afford the detour. The only big desert city I went through was Reno.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > You can find a list of California’s largest desert cities at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_of_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_of_California, and it’s pretty marginal. The list is incomplete; it seems to include only cities in the named deserts, not cities in desert climate; much of the San Joaquin Valley, especially the southern part, is desert—but not in a specifically named desert—that is irrigated for agriculture.
- throwahey 9y ago
  That dataset is limited, it’s vast and accurate for around 100 years then the quality and data points drop exponentially the further back you look. Plenty of people agree that there is not enough data to draw conclusions about such a complex issue. Way to make this political for no reason.
  - orf 9y ago
    It's an inherently political issue, one that has pretty clear cut lines. I'll give you a dollar if you can guess which side of the line has more funding from oil companies and other vested interests. Can you imagine why that particular line might be the one espousing climate change denial and skepticism, uniquely in the developed world, whilst simultaneously preparing for it? Should you not be skeptical of where your skepticism comes from?
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > Plenty of people agree that there is not enough data to draw conclusions What people, climate scientists?
diffeomorphism 9y ago
> We don't have enough data to guess next month's weather let alone the possible effects in 10+ years. Weather is very different from climate. As an example, for many regions of the world you can accurately predict the average rain fall per year, but it is nearly impossible to predict whether it will be raining at noon in 7 weeks from now. Maybe a better analogy for this audience: Predicting statistics does not require predicting particle orbits. Insurance pricing does not require being able to predict the health of each individual person.
- daxorid 9y ago
  > Maybe a better analogy for this audience For this audience, try load averages. Your 1m load average will be significantly more volatile and unpredictable than your 15m load average.
Angostura 9y ago
> We don't have enough data to guess next month's weather let alone the possible effects in 10+ years. It takes a very special kind of hubris to be critical of the science when you apparently get confused between climate and weather.
- ghostlygupa 9y ago
  It takes a special kind of hubris to assume that all science is absolute in it's correctness and non-politicized. Come on now, it's important to be skeptical of both angles.
glup 9y ago
This is incorrect. Researchers have sophisticated models backed by large amounts of data which they use to develop predictions. While there is uncertainty in specifics regarding weather patterns, this does not mean that we don't have sufficiently peaked predictions regarding climate to inform policy, especially when we look at predictions of ensembles of models, e.g. https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/future-climate https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/....
cannonedhamster 9y ago
Let's break this down into a car analogy. The manufacturer (IPCC) says that based on their best information and models if you do not get your oil changed in your car every 10k miles it will lead to increased engine wear which can lead to other problems. Every reputable mechanic (climate scientists)agrees that 10k is a reasonable estimate and that people who drive over that limit will lead to even worse results on average. Now lets say you've got a smart uncle Jim. He's a damned good electrician and he's been driving his car over 10k without changing his oil for years and he says his car is still running great. He brings it into the shop and the mechanic says his mileage is down and there's some wear on the engine that they can see. Since your uncle Jim can't see the wear that these mechanics see he accuses them of trying to rip him off and drives the vehicle even farther past the 10k miles just to prove them wrong. This is the climate change debate in a car analogy. There's tons of variables that can affect how long a car lasts and no good mechanic can tell on what day a car will break, but over a long enough timeline they can say for sure that it will result in degraded performance.

oewfoewf 9y ago

Consensus enough that geoengineering countermeasure "proposals" (they've already started these programs decades ago) explicitly counter the mechanisms that only humans could have started.

orf 9y ago

> It takes a special kind of hubris for someone to think they understand climate change with the minute dataset we have. And an even greater hubris to ignore the pretty vast dataset we do have and go diametrically against the conclusions it suggests. It's also pretty funny how that greater hubris is exhibited mainly in a particular country, and a specific party in that country which has a lot of ties/donations from oil companies. Especially when other branches of the government are preparing for the results of man made climate change. Makes you think, doesn't it.

dizzystar 9y ago
In a certain state in said country, the majority of people are very much not a part of said party, recycle by law, and claim to live with minimal carbon footprint. They also prefer to buy gas-guzzling SUVs, use millions of gallons of water to maintain lawns in the desert, redirect water to their large population centers to do so, and line up to buy the new iThing each year (tossing out the perfectly good old one in the trash).
- orf 9y ago
  > They also prefer to buy gas-guzzling SUVs, use millions of gallons of water to maintain lawns in the desert, redirect water to their large population centers to do so, and line up to buy the new iThing each year (tossing out the perfectly good old one in the trash). All whilst maintaining the third lowest CO2 emissions per capita. Incredible!
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  I’m seriously trying to figure out what state you are talking about. Definitely not California (cities aren’t very near the desert, even Los Angeles is in a semi humid basin), Arizona doesn’t have lawns mostly, Utah SLC wouldn’t really qualify as desert either. So then I thought you might mean Saudi Arabia?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Definitely not California (cities aren’t very near the desert The coastal cities aren't, but the southern central valley cities (Bakersfield, notably) are in the desert.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Sure, but that isn’t many of them. A drive through the desert finds it is mostly unpopulated. Definitely “desert” doesn’t define most of California’s population, it isn’t related to the Bay Area, Sacramento, etc.... You can find a list of California’s largest desert cities at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_of_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_of_California, and it’s pretty marginal. Note Bakersfield isn’t even on that list.
      - seandougall 9y ago
        A drive through the desert looks very different if you don’t take the 5.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        I’ve taken highway 395 all the way from LA to Susanville (afterwards took an even more obscure highway to crater lake). Very nice drive if you can afford the detour. The only big desert city I went through was Reno.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > You can find a list of California’s largest desert cities at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_of_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_of_California, and it’s pretty marginal. The list is incomplete; it seems to include only cities in the named deserts, not cities in desert climate; much of the San Joaquin Valley, especially the southern part, is desert—but not in a specifically named desert—that is irrigated for agriculture.
throwahey 9y ago
That dataset is limited, it’s vast and accurate for around 100 years then the quality and data points drop exponentially the further back you look. Plenty of people agree that there is not enough data to draw conclusions about such a complex issue. Way to make this political for no reason.
- orf 9y ago
  It's an inherently political issue, one that has pretty clear cut lines. I'll give you a dollar if you can guess which side of the line has more funding from oil companies and other vested interests. Can you imagine why that particular line might be the one espousing climate change denial and skepticism, uniquely in the developed world, whilst simultaneously preparing for it? Should you not be skeptical of where your skepticism comes from?
- Oletros 9y ago
  > Plenty of people agree that there is not enough data to draw conclusions What people, climate scientists?

diffeomorphism 9y ago

> We don't have enough data to guess next month's weather let alone the possible effects in 10+ years. Weather is very different from climate. As an example, for many regions of the world you can accurately predict the average rain fall per year, but it is nearly impossible to predict whether it will be raining at noon in 7 weeks from now. Maybe a better analogy for this audience: Predicting statistics does not require predicting particle orbits. Insurance pricing does not require being able to predict the health of each individual person.

daxorid 9y ago
> Maybe a better analogy for this audience For this audience, try load averages. Your 1m load average will be significantly more volatile and unpredictable than your 15m load average.

Angostura 9y ago

> We don't have enough data to guess next month's weather let alone the possible effects in 10+ years. It takes a very special kind of hubris to be critical of the science when you apparently get confused between climate and weather.

ghostlygupa 9y ago
It takes a special kind of hubris to assume that all science is absolute in it's correctness and non-politicized. Come on now, it's important to be skeptical of both angles.

glup 9y ago

This is incorrect. Researchers have sophisticated models backed by large amounts of data which they use to develop predictions. While there is uncertainty in specifics regarding weather patterns, this does not mean that we don't have sufficiently peaked predictions regarding climate to inform policy, especially when we look at predictions of ensembles of models, e.g. https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/future-climate https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/....

cannonedhamster 9y ago

Let's break this down into a car analogy. The manufacturer (IPCC) says that based on their best information and models if you do not get your oil changed in your car every 10k miles it will lead to increased engine wear which can lead to other problems. Every reputable mechanic (climate scientists)agrees that 10k is a reasonable estimate and that people who drive over that limit will lead to even worse results on average. Now lets say you've got a smart uncle Jim. He's a damned good electrician and he's been driving his car over 10k without changing his oil for years and he says his car is still running great. He brings it into the shop and the mechanic says his mileage is down and there's some wear on the engine that they can see. Since your uncle Jim can't see the wear that these mechanics see he accuses them of trying to rip him off and drives the vehicle even farther past the 10k miles just to prove them wrong. This is the climate change debate in a car analogy. There's tons of variables that can affect how long a car lasts and no good mechanic can tell on what day a car will break, but over a long enough timeline they can say for sure that it will result in degraded performance.