5 ms·

It seems you misunderstand what scientists are saying and forming an incorrect opinion from that. > I will confess, referring to climate models that are litera

It seems you misunderstand what scientists are saying and forming an incorrect opinion from that. > I will confess, referring to climate models that are literally estimated projections of future temperatures as "facts", very much rubs me the wrong way. The projections are statistical models. They have a range of values and probabilities associated with them. Without major change, the probabilities of catastrophic climate change are very, very high. Are they certain? Not mathematically, no. Would I take that bet? Any day of the week and you should too.

mistermann 7y ago
> It seems you misunderstand what scientists are saying and forming an incorrect opinion from that. I feel highly confident that I don't actually misunderstand what scientists are saying, but rather you have misunderstood (misinterpreted due to heuristic modification during interpretation) what I have said. Would you be willing to quote particular statements I've made that you consider to be mistaken? > The projections are statistical models. They have a range of values and probabilities associated with them. Without major change, the probabilities of catastrophic climate change are very, very high. I agree. > Are they certain? Not mathematically, no. I agree. It is that they are commonly presented as if they are certain that I am complaining about. It is clearly incorrect/dishonest. It is claimed to be "science". Actual science does not say things it knows to not be true, but people that believe they are discussing matters purely on "the science" are regularly guilty of this. But try and get people (who well know this is true) to acknowledge this simple fact, and observe the amazing complexity of human psychology in its natural form. > Would I take that bet? Any day of the week and you should too. I do. And I suggest you consider being more open minded about what might be preventing us from making progress on this issue. Specifically: resist the natural urge to classify a lack of total agreement as opposition to your cause. Perhaps what appears to be opposition is anything but, and is actually new ideas that you've never considered before.
- asdf21 7y ago
  Case in point, I believe in climate change... that it's man-made (so to speak), that it results from higher than normal levels of carbon, that it will cause sea level rise, etc. But I disagree on some core orthodoxies. I think the root cause is deforestation / removal of carbon sinks, and a even lower-level root cause is simple human overpopulation. The amount of missing biomass from trees over the last few hundred years tracks very neatly with CO2 levels, as does of course human population levels. I also know for a fact that other countries are much worse offenders when it comes to Carbon emissions and pollution in general, compared to the US or any other Western nation. Therefore, I don't understand nor support most US policy changes to "combat" climate change... I think these are at best a farce, and at worst cynical money grabs by professional fleecers. How exactly is any US policy going to stop a poor farmer in Brazil from cutting down trees to make money to support his family? How will any US policy prevent the other 4 Billion or so impoverished people who are doing similar things? As far as stopping China from polluting, we probably can't do much better than the effect Trump's tariffs have had, and are continuing to have... but Heaven forbid you tell anyone that who proclaims to care about the environment.
  - svara 7y ago
    I won't comment on your other points, which need citations to be discussed properly, but ... > I also know for a fact that other countries are much worse offenders when it comes to Carbon emissions and pollution in general, compared to the US or any other Western nation. The problem is that this is a tragedy of the commons situation. For every individual actor, taking action is detrimental because the cost is paid by the individual but the benefit is broadly distributed over all actors. Tragedy of the commons type situations can be overcome by some sort of binding legal framework. This is why no one is proposing for any single country to solve the problem alone, but rather to coordinate internationally. As a side point, morally speaking western nations have a particular responsibility because they are the ones who caused most of the increase in CO2 levels since industrialization. True, China is the biggest emitter now, but that is a fairly recent development.
    - abathur 7y ago
      Also, the US still has fairly high emissions per capita--something like 2x China, 6.7x Brazil, and 8.5x India (though I think these numbers also leave something to be desired in terms of how they consider other factors the GP notes like deforestation, as well as what emission fractions are going to activities like producing and shipping exports elsewhere).

mistermann 7y ago

> It seems you misunderstand what scientists are saying and forming an incorrect opinion from that. I feel highly confident that I don't actually misunderstand what scientists are saying, but rather you have misunderstood (misinterpreted due to heuristic modification during interpretation) what I have said. Would you be willing to quote particular statements I've made that you consider to be mistaken? > The projections are statistical models. They have a range of values and probabilities associated with them. Without major change, the probabilities of catastrophic climate change are very, very high. I agree. > Are they certain? Not mathematically, no. I agree. It is that they are commonly presented as if they are certain that I am complaining about. It is clearly incorrect/dishonest. It is claimed to be "science". Actual science does not say things it knows to not be true, but people that believe they are discussing matters purely on "the science" are regularly guilty of this. But try and get people (who well know this is true) to acknowledge this simple fact, and observe the amazing complexity of human psychology in its natural form. > Would I take that bet? Any day of the week and you should too. I do. And I suggest you consider being more open minded about what might be preventing us from making progress on this issue. Specifically: resist the natural urge to classify a lack of total agreement as opposition to your cause. Perhaps what appears to be opposition is anything but, and is actually new ideas that you've never considered before.

asdf21 7y ago
Case in point, I believe in climate change... that it's man-made (so to speak), that it results from higher than normal levels of carbon, that it will cause sea level rise, etc. But I disagree on some core orthodoxies. I think the root cause is deforestation / removal of carbon sinks, and a even lower-level root cause is simple human overpopulation. The amount of missing biomass from trees over the last few hundred years tracks very neatly with CO2 levels, as does of course human population levels. I also know for a fact that other countries are much worse offenders when it comes to Carbon emissions and pollution in general, compared to the US or any other Western nation. Therefore, I don't understand nor support most US policy changes to "combat" climate change... I think these are at best a farce, and at worst cynical money grabs by professional fleecers. How exactly is any US policy going to stop a poor farmer in Brazil from cutting down trees to make money to support his family? How will any US policy prevent the other 4 Billion or so impoverished people who are doing similar things? As far as stopping China from polluting, we probably can't do much better than the effect Trump's tariffs have had, and are continuing to have... but Heaven forbid you tell anyone that who proclaims to care about the environment.
- svara 7y ago
  I won't comment on your other points, which need citations to be discussed properly, but ... > I also know for a fact that other countries are much worse offenders when it comes to Carbon emissions and pollution in general, compared to the US or any other Western nation. The problem is that this is a tragedy of the commons situation. For every individual actor, taking action is detrimental because the cost is paid by the individual but the benefit is broadly distributed over all actors. Tragedy of the commons type situations can be overcome by some sort of binding legal framework. This is why no one is proposing for any single country to solve the problem alone, but rather to coordinate internationally. As a side point, morally speaking western nations have a particular responsibility because they are the ones who caused most of the increase in CO2 levels since industrialization. True, China is the biggest emitter now, but that is a fairly recent development.
  - abathur 7y ago
    Also, the US still has fairly high emissions per capita--something like 2x China, 6.7x Brazil, and 8.5x India (though I think these numbers also leave something to be desired in terms of how they consider other factors the GP notes like deforestation, as well as what emission fractions are going to activities like producing and shipping exports elsewhere).