BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

Yes, thanks, many of these ideas as I have often stated in this forum come from Taleb, thanks for the further quotes.

I think this is a great book an important book.

Many of his ideas indeed come from other sources as I noted.

mike777, on 2014-December-04, 15:17, said:

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.

Did anyone see a recent episode of The Newsroom on HBO in which one of the upper administrators of the EPA is interviewed live on the air and says that the climate apocalypse is a done deal and that a person has already been born who will die as a result of the effects of climate change. When pressed on what could be done to avoid disaster, he says that reducing carbon emissions and other moves in that direction would have been a fine idea 20 or 30 years ago, but it was now too late.

I wonder how close that gloomy picture is to the truth.

ArtK78, on 2014-December-04, 15:31, said:

Ya I discussed this a few days ago. cute tv show.
post 1998

hrothgar, on 2014-December-04, 15:31, said:

I find these comments amusing, but they really don't add anything to the discussion. I hope you enjoyed putting them out there. I am sure Mike was very happy to see them.

ArtK78, on 2014-December-04, 15:34, said:

I am obliquing pointing out that Mike's attempts to portray himself as an intellectual by blindly providing out of context quotes from individuals like Taleb doesn't fool people

I hardly think that quote is out of context. In fact is in full context regarding ecological policy. In fact I stated it was not idea I came up with. It is in agreement and context with the other quotes people have provided. That is an unfair attack.

If somehow or someway I gave the impression this is MY own original policy, and not from various sources, I apologize.

hrothgar, on 2014-December-04, 15:43, said:

I would leave it to the "people" to work that out for themselves.

Daniel1960, on 2014-December-04, 12:16, said:

Thanks for the links. Interesting stuff.

mikeh, on 2014-December-04, 12:47, said:

Most doctors smoked and doctors appeared in early adverts for cigarettes. They honestly believed smoking was beneficial.
About 60 years ago, removing tonsils and adenoids was all the rage. Then hysterectomies were rife. Surgeons genuinely believed in the operation -- the operation was common among surgeons' wives.
Even in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence, most of us are capable of amazing feats of rationalization. For example, I guess that some who are genuinely concerned about climate change, still drive cars, pave their gardens, etc...

mikeh, on 2014-December-04, 12:47, said:

As for the 97%, only an idiot would argue that when 97% of a large community of experts....actual, real, live people with doctorates and experience and credentials, and peer-reviewed publications....express a view on the subject-matter in which they are expert, the preponderance of opinion is meaningless.......you have watched too much Fox news, Mike....'experts are wrong all the time' is the 'rationalization' of people who don't understand what they are discussing.

Nobody claimed that majority opinion is "meaningless" or "experts are wrong all the time". More pathetic casualties in an army of strawmen.

nige1, on 2014-December-04, 20:50, said:

What's your problem?

Let me quote from the post to which I was responding, using (you claim) a strawman argument: Mike777 wrote: "experts are wrong all the time"

So please take your own pathetic strawman and stuff it where the sun don't shine

Or, and I very much doubt that you have the integrity to do this, apologize for your mistake.

I infer from your criticisms of my posts that you get some jollies from making your self-righteous attacks on my posts. Normally I don't bother responding to you because I don't have much respect for you, in the WC or the bridge forums, but when you descend to outright falsehoods, you get my attention.

Have I made myself clear to you?

mikeh, on 2014-December-04, 23:57, said:

I apologize for my mistake.

mikeh, on 2014-December-04, 23:57, said:

I infer from your criticisms of my posts that you get some jollies from making your self-righteous attacks on my posts. Normally I don't bother responding to you because I don't have much respect for you, in the WC or the bridge forums, but when you descend to outright falsehoods, you get my attention. Have I made myself clear to you?

Clear but mistaken.

nige1, on 2014-December-05, 06:06, said:

thank you. apology accepted

"Ad hominem" attacks are popular on BBO. Nevertheless, IMO, among the reasons to avoid them are:

• They side-line discussion away from fact and reason. A pity because climate-change is a vitally important topic, about which we need to be better informed.
• They are often the last refuge for those who are losing a debate.
• If you want to persuade others to your point of view, then impertinence is unlikely to be effective.
• Especially when you share a majority view and are sure you're right, you should test your beliefs, by encouraging rather than discouraging counter-argument from the minority.

mikeh, on 2014-December-04, 14:22, said:

My apoogies Mike,

Typically I have found that when people invoke the 97% argument, they are using mass appeal to confirm their position, rather than solid evidence. The other fallacy of those claiming 97% is that since only about 3% flatly oppose the theory (your "ultra-lunatic fringe), that the rest must support it. The figure originated in the Doran report based on the Zimmerman thesis, and was the percentage of climate modelers believing that the Earth had warmed. The figure was ~85%, when all scientists were included. Additional questions about the cause of the warming showed stark differences in opinion, with about half stating than mankind was the primary cause.

While the Earth has warmed, and is likely to continue, claims of catastrophic warming in the near future, approaching apocalyptic proportions, appear to be an equally "ultra-lunatic fringe." Since the mid 19th century, our planet has oscillated around a warming rate of ~0.6C/century. Which group appears to be more on the fringe, those claiming cooling of 0.6C or those proclaiming warming of 1.2C this century? Both are equally far from the scientific measurements. One of the biggest questions raging in climate science today is, how much of that warming has been caused by the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels? A reminder: not all of the increase is due to the combustion of carbon-based fuels; deforestation has been a big player also, along with respiration and outgassing.

At times, I think we are on the same page on this issues, and at other times, I think not. Thanks for your response.

Daniel1960, on 2014-December-05, 08:21, said:

Actually there are no scientific measurements from the future, so neither claim can be said to be "far from the scientific measurements."

The problem we face, and it is a complex one, is projecting the future climate using information available now. Doing so requires modeling. You don't evade that requirement by projecting future warming at the rate of warming since the mid-19th century: You merely substitute a much simpler model. There is no reason to suppose that your simpler model will hold in the face of changing conditions, and (I think) plenty of reasons to suppose that it will not.

Mankind has been moving buried carbon to the atmosphere at the rate of billions of tons per year to the point where CO₂ levels are the highest in 15 million years. CO₂ traps heat. We are disturbing a complex system, and no one knows exactly how that will play out. However, sea levels are bound to rise and the people living in low-lying areas already face serious problems. If the North Atlantic Drift is disrupted, Europe will experience adverse consequences.

Because of the uncertainties involved as well as the impending difficulties that can no longer be stopped, conservatives keep pushing for a market-based approach to reduce emissions. To date the conservatives have been losing politically to the Pollyannas, but that has to change. The sooner it does, the better.

mikeh, on 2014-December-04, 10:53, said:

You ascribe to me beliefs I do not hold. Also, I never suggested my opinion should matter to anyone. Nor should yours.

I submit that if you ask 1000 climate scientists if they "know the answers," they'll say no. I would suggest that if they say they do, they're not scientists. Scientists know better.

blackshoe, on 2014-December-04, 10:44, said:

This seems to reflect the view to which I was speaking. If that doesn't represent your view, then I apologize. I think it clear that I don't consider myself any form of expert on global warming, so my personal opinion is worth nothing in terms of persuading anyone as to the need to do anything....other than what I would hope is the logic behind suggesting that we listen to the experts. Since the experts do appear, to some degree and with lots of uncertainty, to think that it would be a good thing to do something to reduce the man-made contribution to global warming, that is what I support. To that extent I would hope that enough people would agree with that notion that political leaders would be chosen who have the willingness to do the right thing, for a change.

Accordingly, people like you, using your words to infer who you are, constitute a real obstacle to progress. Fence-sitting is a luxury we seem unlikely to be able to tolerate anymore than we can tolerate active opposition.

Acting could cause harm, acting could be too little, too late, and it could be unnecessary. However, the consensus amongst experts seems to be that doing something to reduce our specie's contribution to global warming is an urgent proposition and in those circumstances, it seems to me to be very foolish to refuse to listen.

You described me as "clinging to the notion that your unqualified skepticism should offset the warnings of those who actually know the subject." I'm not "clinging" to any notion; certainly not that one.

Your personal opinion might carry more weight if it was not expressed in terms of "you're an idiot, STFU".

I note that Nigel apologized to you for his mistake, and you accepted that apology while ignoring that he says in that same post that you were also mistaken. Where's your apology to him?

mikeh, on 2014-December-05, 10:04, said:

I'm going to split hairs here a bit. There is strong consensus among scientific experts that AGW is happening. There is strong consensus within a certain political movement that reducing it is an urgent proposition. This is not the same thing. The two propositions are separable, despite the movement's efforts to link them.

mikeh, on 2014-December-05, 10:04, said:

To that extent I would hope that enough people would agree with that notion that political leaders would be chosen who have the willingness to do the right thing, for a change.

Unfortunately, there seem to be very few places in the world where politics actually work that way.