3 ms·

What a bizarre, ugly and incredibly unscientific fantasy. Are you aware that absolutely nothing in any IPCC report (which presumably you trust?) depicts anythin

What a bizarre, ugly and incredibly unscientific fantasy. Are you aware that absolutely nothing in any IPCC report (which presumably you trust?) depicts anything even close to that scenario? The worst they can come up with is a few percent lopped off GDP by 2100. Also, "scientists are human"? What the emails showed is that scientists were willing to totally distort the scientific process to ensure their claims won the day even in the face of contradictory evidence. If you blow off terribly unscientific behavior with "they're only human" then you can't be upset when people decide they aren't really scientists and can safely be ignored.

wizofaus 4y ago
From ch. 13: "It is virtually certain that global mean sea level rise will continue beyond 2100...For a radiative forcing that corresponds to above 700 ppm CO2-eq but below 1500 ppm, as in the scenario RCP8.5, the projected rise is 1 m to more than 3 m." That doesn't even include the possibility of storm surges that far exceed that, which are expected to become more frequent/extreme. "A study simulating analogous conditions to the Dust Bowl drought in today’s agriculture suggests that Dust Bowl-type droughts today would have unprecedented consequences, with yield losses about 50% larger than the severe drought of 2012 (Glotter and Elliott 2016). Damages at these extremes are highly sensitive to temperature, worsening by about 25% with each degree centigrade of warming. By mid-century, over 80% of summers are projected to have average temperatures that are likely to exceed the hottest summer in the Dust Bowl years (1936)" I can continue if you like. I read many of the climate-gate emails. At worst you could claim there were a few cases where scientists were applying techniques to paint their research results in a more favourable light than it might otherwise appear.
- origin_path 4y ago
  But: 1. I don't live near the sea. 2. I won't be alive in the year 2100. 3. RCP8.5 is a ridiculous scenario that assumes, amongst other things, that all renewable power is demolished and coal usage increases 500%. Even the BBC has debunked this one, reporting that researchers no long consider this scenario plausible: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 The fact that you're citing it indicates you aren't really that well informed about this stuff. 4. Even if that did happen, a 1m or even 3m rise that happens over the course of more than 100 years isn't going to cause anyone to suddenly have to evacuate their home whilst grabbing tin cans. That's pure Hollywood. People would simply build sea defenses. 5. The whole point of climategate was that it showed scientists were exaggerating their predictions, so quoting those same predictions as an argument against the emails is nonsensical and circular. "At worst you could claim there were a few cases where scientists were applying techniques to paint their research results in a more favourable light than it might otherwise appear." That's distinctly underplaying the seriousness of what was going on (and probably still is).
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Obviously I was engaging in a small amount of artistic license/hyperbole in order to get my point across, nor was it supposed to be a description of your own personal circumstances. There are reports that many scientists involved in the IPCC report have been deliberately understating the case for more extreme outcomes too. No doubt both behaviours occur - again, we're all human, and the scientific method is the best (imperfect) way we have of ensuring such claims don't unduly influence our best scientific understanding. Do you really honestly believe we'd be better off simply ignoring the IPCC report and not worry about fossil fuel emissions at all just because there may have been a few exaggerated data points published?
    - origin_path 4y ago
      Maybe? The efforts being proposed to drive down emissions will have terribly harmful consequences on the poorest, and if the IPCC is wrong or even "just" exaggerating then the harms can easily outweigh the benefits. I'd like to see us reduce dependency on fossil fuels simply because they're finite, but I also think the best way to do that is let the private sector get on with it in response to supply/demand signals. Trying to go beyond that involves massive state intervention and, historically, this has often gone terribly wrong. Especially so when motivated by science that turns out to be unreliable. Trofim Lysenko is the classic example but lobotomy is another. Point is, that there's quite a lot of evidence that the narratives around climate change aren't just exaggerated but wildly exaggerated, and that all kinds of bad behaviors are being deployed to hide this fact. Climategate made that unambiguous because we can actually read emails where they're conspiring behind the scenes to cheat the scientific process, but there's lots of other examples of this happening that aren't from those emails. If they do it a few times and get away with it even when all their emails are leaked, why wouldn't they keep doing it? And why would we assume it was just one offs? Seems more likely to be a pattern of behavior and, again, we do see a heck of a lot of smoke when outsiders examine the (claimed to be) science.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        "The efforts being proposed to drive down emissions will have terribly harmful consequences on the poorest" What on earth makes you think that? Renewable energy sources and our ability to manufacture them cheaply and at scale are arguably of the most benefit to poorer countries. Honestly the only people I can see "suffering" from a genuine attempt to reduce our emissions are those of us currently accustomed to a lifestyle that's largely dependent on high levels of such emissions. I certainly don't want to have to give up regular overseas travel...but it's a luxury and there are other ways to get the most out of life while maintaining a less extravagant personal footprint.

wizofaus 4y ago

From ch. 13: "It is virtually certain that global mean sea level rise will continue beyond 2100...For a radiative forcing that corresponds to above 700 ppm CO2-eq but below 1500 ppm, as in the scenario RCP8.5, the projected rise is 1 m to more than 3 m." That doesn't even include the possibility of storm surges that far exceed that, which are expected to become more frequent/extreme. "A study simulating analogous conditions to the Dust Bowl drought in today’s agriculture suggests that Dust Bowl-type droughts today would have unprecedented consequences, with yield losses about 50% larger than the severe drought of 2012 (Glotter and Elliott 2016). Damages at these extremes are highly sensitive to temperature, worsening by about 25% with each degree centigrade of warming. By mid-century, over 80% of summers are projected to have average temperatures that are likely to exceed the hottest summer in the Dust Bowl years (1936)" I can continue if you like. I read many of the climate-gate emails. At worst you could claim there were a few cases where scientists were applying techniques to paint their research results in a more favourable light than it might otherwise appear.

origin_path 4y ago
But: 1. I don't live near the sea. 2. I won't be alive in the year 2100. 3. RCP8.5 is a ridiculous scenario that assumes, amongst other things, that all renewable power is demolished and coal usage increases 500%. Even the BBC has debunked this one, reporting that researchers no long consider this scenario plausible: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 The fact that you're citing it indicates you aren't really that well informed about this stuff. 4. Even if that did happen, a 1m or even 3m rise that happens over the course of more than 100 years isn't going to cause anyone to suddenly have to evacuate their home whilst grabbing tin cans. That's pure Hollywood. People would simply build sea defenses. 5. The whole point of climategate was that it showed scientists were exaggerating their predictions, so quoting those same predictions as an argument against the emails is nonsensical and circular. "At worst you could claim there were a few cases where scientists were applying techniques to paint their research results in a more favourable light than it might otherwise appear." That's distinctly underplaying the seriousness of what was going on (and probably still is).
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Obviously I was engaging in a small amount of artistic license/hyperbole in order to get my point across, nor was it supposed to be a description of your own personal circumstances. There are reports that many scientists involved in the IPCC report have been deliberately understating the case for more extreme outcomes too. No doubt both behaviours occur - again, we're all human, and the scientific method is the best (imperfect) way we have of ensuring such claims don't unduly influence our best scientific understanding. Do you really honestly believe we'd be better off simply ignoring the IPCC report and not worry about fossil fuel emissions at all just because there may have been a few exaggerated data points published?
  - origin_path 4y ago
    Maybe? The efforts being proposed to drive down emissions will have terribly harmful consequences on the poorest, and if the IPCC is wrong or even "just" exaggerating then the harms can easily outweigh the benefits. I'd like to see us reduce dependency on fossil fuels simply because they're finite, but I also think the best way to do that is let the private sector get on with it in response to supply/demand signals. Trying to go beyond that involves massive state intervention and, historically, this has often gone terribly wrong. Especially so when motivated by science that turns out to be unreliable. Trofim Lysenko is the classic example but lobotomy is another. Point is, that there's quite a lot of evidence that the narratives around climate change aren't just exaggerated but wildly exaggerated, and that all kinds of bad behaviors are being deployed to hide this fact. Climategate made that unambiguous because we can actually read emails where they're conspiring behind the scenes to cheat the scientific process, but there's lots of other examples of this happening that aren't from those emails. If they do it a few times and get away with it even when all their emails are leaked, why wouldn't they keep doing it? And why would we assume it was just one offs? Seems more likely to be a pattern of behavior and, again, we do see a heck of a lot of smoke when outsiders examine the (claimed to be) science.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      "The efforts being proposed to drive down emissions will have terribly harmful consequences on the poorest" What on earth makes you think that? Renewable energy sources and our ability to manufacture them cheaply and at scale are arguably of the most benefit to poorer countries. Honestly the only people I can see "suffering" from a genuine attempt to reduce our emissions are those of us currently accustomed to a lifestyle that's largely dependent on high levels of such emissions. I certainly don't want to have to give up regular overseas travel...but it's a luxury and there are other ways to get the most out of life while maintaining a less extravagant personal footprint.