Invasion of Ukraine

[GrantDawg]

This is one subject I absolutely agree with Brian on. Nuclear is the bridge till we get more comprehensive renewable coverage.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The other potential problem is are we trading oil for rare earth elements needed for the batteries but reports I've been reading indicates its doable.

I agree with this. EVs have issues but everything I've heard and read indicates their problems are much smaller than continuing to use ICEs. Taking the good option in absence of a perfect one, and all that.

[RainMaker]

I'm fine with nuclear but the problem seems to be that it's incredibly expensive to build and maintain. Energy companies are more concerned about short term stock price than long term investments.

All the talk about policies and stuff overlooks the fact that this is the private sector. These companies don't care about our stance in the world or energy independence. So unless you nationalized the energy sector, our energy policy will be determined by what is most profitable in the short term for a select group of shareholders.

No politician or political party can force those businesses to invest in nuclear power plants. Just as we can't force companies here to build more refineries to increase capacity.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Would you care to address the refining capacity point? Since we wouldn't be refining it here anyway, this seems to be saying that 'Keystone XL is important to pretend to do something we actually aren't at all going to do'.



This hasn't been a viable option for at least 30 years, possibly longer. The environmental damage is simply too great. We have to go faster, whatever is required to do that.

I partially agree with you on the current renewables, but I think you overstate the problems with them. Wind, solar, etc. are useful as partial solutions, but they definitely have problems and can't be relied on entirely which is why I advocate nuclear which can do those things. We can get largely off of coal and natural gas if we're willing to make the necessary investment, which means that not doing so is an absolutely abysmal abdication of responsibility.

We do need to keep improving technology, and aggressively implement it as improvements become available. But we are way, way past the point where it's reasonable to just wait for that. We need to be using every possible alternative *now* to limit the damage to the environment future generations will live in.

Refining: Keystone XL would serve the need to get heavy crude to US refineries. If that wasn't the case, then why was Biden going to Venezuela of all places to try and get more shipments of pretty much the same grade that Canada is now shipping to China? We are dependent on Mexico as well for these grades, and they have less to ship.

Environmental damage: I don't see that issue as urgent. Obviously, Europe does, or they wouldn't have enriched Putin to this point and made him so confident that they wouldn't move to sanctions that would actually have an impact. Now Ukraine is paying the price. So now we're starting to understand more about the cost of shutting down fossil fuel use. It will get steeper as grids fail and people get cold in the winter.

I could not possibly discuss the issue more thoroughly than Steven Koonin, who played an important role in Obama's Energy department. His book, Unsettled, is a very low-key analysis that explains why many people think there is a crisis. He is less certain. Obviously, he came under considerable criticism for writing it, and he anticipated that response. Some of the book is about how the academic world and how the IPCC work right now.

I have no desire to get into specifics, only that the book addresses the basic points everyone makes these days. Continuing to rely on the mechanism of basing further computer models on top of computer models that haven't proven accurate is utterly pointless. If you haven't read the book and don't want to, fine. But if you hate the term "belief" and want to understand why a lot of people think it's unlikely there is a crisis (but are mostly understanding that it's a message no one wants to hear right now), I think it's an excellent read. I don't know the answers myself, but he explains exactly why one can remain agnostic on this issue, skeptical that the world is coming to any significant harm, and want to learn more before acting.

I'll just make two more points, as I expect a rather angry response to this post, and I probably won't bother reading it if it comes from people I have long stopped reading here (who knows, maybe they stopped reading me a long time ago and won't see this). One is that if you think of responding to the climate issue as a form of Pascal's Wager, well, you need to look at both what Putin's doing and what will happen in the EU as they continue to shut down oil, gas and even nuclear plants and understand that it isn't a form of Pascal's Wager and never was.

And second, if you are in the group that believes firmly that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are leading to catastrophic warming and other events, as we know, CO2 stays up there a long, long time and levels will increase as they are now no matter what we do because Putin and Xi and pretty much every developing country around the world is quite happy to continue to build coal, gas, oil and nuclear as quickly as possible. Whatever we don't burn ourselves, they will, and they will charge us more and more for it. Our world exploded in population and prosperity because of reliable energy and giving that up probably will cause a war far greater than anything we can imagine right now.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Refining: Keystone XL would serve the need to get heavy crude to US refineries. If that wasn't the case, then why was Biden going to Venezuela of all places to try and get more shipments of pretty much the same grade that Canada is now shipping to China? We are dependent on Mexico as well for these grades, and they have less to ship.

Heavy crude gets to US refineries just fine. As noted by Brian, those refineries are at capacity. They just want to cut the costs of transporting the crude to pad their profit margins. That product is still getting shipped off to China and India (along with any excess heavy crude that comes through the pipeline that we don't have the capacity to refine).

As for what is going on with Venezuela? We don't really know yet. They sit on a ton of incredibly cheap heavy crude which would be incredibly helpful to Europeans looking to scale back their dependence on Russia. Adding another seller to the global supply chain would help drive down prices.

Worth noting that Koonin was the Chief Scientist at BP for many years. His work is funded primarily by the energy industry. He was one of many scientists that got appointed to positions in the government. In fact, his appointment was made because the head of the Energy Department wanted some contrarian voices. He did not play an important role and his work has been largely discredited by the scientific community. Even the oil company he worked for discredited him later on in court.

He's got a good grift going and he fills an important role for an audience that isn't going to take 30 seconds to Google him after an appearance.

[RainMaker]

We should also understand that the United States doesn't own any of this. The pipeline was going to be owned by TC Energy, a Canadian company who would sell their oil to whoever paid them the most money. The refineries in the Gulf will sell their finished product to whoever will pay them the most money (right now it's India and China).

Sometimes we can feel some sense of ownership, or at least a partnership between these companies and our country. I mean we've spent trillions to help them and sacrificed countless lives. But they control how much they drill and who they choose to sell their product to.

[Fidatelo]

The worst part about Keystone XL was when it shot down that Ukrainian fighter jet.

[PilotMan]

Democrats will use the Keystone XL to traffic illegal voters to the south to steal all the elections.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Keystone XL would serve the need to get heavy crude to US refineries. If that wasn't the case, then why was Biden going to Venezuela of all places to try and get more shipments of pretty much the same grade that Canada is now shipping to China? We are dependent on Mexico as well for these grades, and they have less to ship.

You are correct about the similarity with Venezuelan oil, and I do not know the why on what Biden is doing there. What I do know are verifiable facts about what the nature of the US refinery capacity and production is. Those facts are that the refinery production skews towards the light oil end of the spectrum fairly heavily, and has been trending further in that direction for almost two decades. We don't have a heavy oil shortage.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I have no desire to get into specifics, only that the book addresses the basic points everyone makes these days. Continuing to rely on the mechanism of basing further computer models on top of computer models that haven't proven accurate is utterly pointless.

I understand not wanting to get lost in the weeds, but this also removes credibility in making the claims you've made about how we should approach energy. You can't on the one hand make arguments for the positives of what you think should be done, and on the other hand not be willing to discuss the negatives, if you want to be taken seriously.

The second sentence above is counterfactual. Peer-reviewed studies of the IPCC have concluded that they have actually erred on the side of the underestimating the effects of climate change. I am not aware of any study that has concluded the opposite. And more and more examples keep coming up. One that's been in the news recently is the melting of the ice near the Thwaites Glacier. Physical observations and measurements taken over the last few years have continually led to estimates of the area melting and distintegrating much faster than previously thought. This kind of discovery is far more common than those going in the other direction and finding models had overestimated compared to real-world results.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

CO2 stays up there a long, long time and levels will increase as they are now no matter what we do because Putin and Xi and pretty much every developing country around the world is quite happy to continue to build coal, gas, oil and nuclear as quickly as possible. Whatever we don't burn ourselves, they will, and they will charge us more and more for it.

Nobody is proposing that we keep using just as many fossil fuels, but buy them from other countries instead of producing them ourselves. The point is using less of them and getting more energy from other sources. Russia and China can't charge us more for a product we don't consume. If we use fewer fossil fuels, the net result is less damage to the environment. We should still keep producing as much as we can of what we consume - that's beside the point.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

You are correct about the similarity with Venezuelan oil, and I do not know the why on what Biden is doing there. What I do know are verifiable facts about what the nature of the US refinery capacity and production is. Those facts are that the refinery production skews towards the light oil end of the spectrum fairly heavily, and has been trending further in that direction for almost two decades. We don't have a heavy oil shortage.

We can refine more, though and sell it or trade it. Capacity is trending down and that didn't have to be the case. We are steadily moving away from energy independence, and that's going to cause a lot of harm. We cannot help the EU, make it possible for them to turn down Russian fuel.

When it comes to refining and producing, the energy companies need to invest over long periods of time. So when Biden says that all of this is temporary and the plants will have to be closed long before they're obsolete, who would invest in them?

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I understand not wanting to get lost in the weeds, but this also removes credibility in making the claims you've made about how we should approach energy. You can't on the one hand make arguments for the positives of what you think should be done, and on the other hand not be willing to discuss the negatives, if you want to be taken seriously.

There's zero chance you were going to agree with what I wrote here. Please admit that, at least.

I was merely saying that Koonin covers the argument far more thoroughly in his book and this is simply not the place where any skepticism about the narrative that there's a crisis can be discussed. If you're interested, read it. I think is quite well done. He's hardly a "drill baby, drill" guy or someone who entirely dismisses claims of warming.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The second sentence above is counterfactual. Peer-reviewed studies of the IPCC have concluded that they have actually erred on the side of the underestimating the effects of climate change. I am not aware of any study that has concluded the opposite.

One of Koonin's chapters explains in detail how the peer review process is broken and how the IPCC is basing its conclusions on studies with confidence intervals that aren't convincing in the slightest.

For me, I look at the numbers and I don't see the crisis. You do. I don't think there's much point to us debating, because we're not experts. I quote something and you might say the source is biased. You quote something and I might say the source is biased or that it might be a good thing if I'm wrong and it gets a little warmer. Utterly pointless debate.

Meanwhile, we can see the costs of dismantling the energy grid and relying on technologies that are by nature unreliable. There's no way Putin would have attacked Ukraine if he weren't confident the oil money would keep coming in. And European countries were already talking about rationing fuel next winter. Meanwhile, they keep shutting down existing plants. This is an immediate crisis that has already led to terrible consequences.

If this ends up taking down energy grids, this year's pain is only the beginning.

And if this is a real climate crisis, it seems crystal clear that the wind/solar approach is a bad one. Nuclear over oil/natural gas until we have viable renewable sources? OK. A worthwhile discussion, though it takes a very long time to build nuclear plants.

[cuervo72]

Contrarians gonna contrary.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We can refine more, though and sell it or trade it. Capacity is trending down and that didn't have to be the case. We are steadily moving away from energy independence, and that's going to cause a lot of harm. We cannot help the EU, make it possible for them to turn down Russian fuel.

There is no "we". "We" can't decide to refine more heavy crude. That's up to the companies that own the refineries. And many of those refineries are owned by foreign companies. For instance, the Saudis own the largest oil refinery in this country.

If capacity is down, it's because the companies want it to be down. Much more profitable to sell less oil at a higher price than the other way around.

Unless you're calling for a nationalization of the energy industry, I don't know who "we" is talking about.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We can refine more, though and sell it or trade it. Capacity is trending down and that didn't have to be the case. We are steadily moving away from energy independence, and that's going to cause a lot of harm. We cannot help the EU, make it possible for them to turn down Russian fuel.

There is no significant long-term downward trend. The only year significantly down is 2021, less than 4% below 2020 which was almost as high as 2021, and those declines are rather evidently related to the pandemic. I really don't get the 'helping the EU' bit. We already export 10x as much oil as the maximum capacity of Keystone XL. It just doesn't move the needle under the most favorable assessment of it.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There's zero chance you were going to agree with what I wrote here. Please admit that, at least.

I'd put it very low, but not at zero. In the early 90s, I was a climate change denier. I thought the ozone hole, global warming, etc. claims were bunk. At that point in time it was arguably a reasonable point of view. It took me longer to change my mind than it should have, but I eventually did, based on evidence. It's not impossible that I could change it back, but doing so would require data and evidence, not a refusal to discuss them.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I was merely saying that Koonin covers the argument far more thoroughly in his book and this is simply not the place where any skepticism about the narrative that there's a crisis can be discussed. If you're interested, read it.

Anything can be discussed here as long as there are at least two people willing to do so. I'm putting myself out there as one such person. You have the opportunity to back up your claims by being a second, or choosing to not do so, but it's a cop-out to say it can't be discussed here. Sure it can.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

One of Koonin's chapters explains in detail how the peer review process is broken and how the IPCC is basing its conclusions on studies with confidence intervals that aren't convincing in the slightest.

If so, we'd see the IPCC's projections coming in below later real-world observations and measurements. Yet typically we see the opposite. You don't have to dig down into the technical scientific details to see that melting in Greenland and Antartica is higher, that ocean levels are rising faster than predicted, that temperature increases have been close to predicted and underestimated as often as they've been overestimated (and well within the predicted range of results for the past two decades).

There's basically two choices here; that there's a global conspiracy which almost all scientists are in on and therefore they are lying about basic data, or that the IPCC, despite whatever criticisms one may wish to accuse them of in methodology, has nonetheless managed to be consistently close to the mark and overall erred much more on the side of caution than on the side of alarmism.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

we can see the costs of dismantling the energy grid and relying on technologies that are by nature unreliable. There's no way Putin would have attacked Ukraine if he weren't confident the oil money would keep coming in. And European countries were already talking about rationing fuel next winter. Meanwhile, they keep shutting down existing plants. This is an immediate crisis that has already led to terrible consequences.

Re: Putin I don't think that's necessarily true. But again you're arguing against a proposal that nobody here is making. Nobody's saying 'let's produce less energy than we need'.

I could just as validly say that it's a pointless argument to even talk about Ukraine or any other issue. It's only pointless if people make up their mind not to engage in good faith. There's nothing about climate change that is inherently more pointless to discuss than any other issue.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Anything can be discussed here as long as there are at least two people willing to do so. I'm putting myself out there as one such person. You have the opportunity to back up your claims by being a second, or choosing to not do so, but it's a cop-out to say it can't be discussed here. Sure it can.

If you're using religious terms like "denier," can you enter a discussion? Again, what I'm saying is Koonin has written a book that encapsulates this argument. He does so far better than I could. The title is Unsettled. It isn't about changing minds or making claims, other than that those saying that there is a crisis have not made their case.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

If so, we'd see the IPCC's projections coming in below later real-world observations and measurements. Yet typically we see the opposite. You don't have to dig down into the technical scientific details to see that melting in Greenland and Antartica is higher, that ocean levels are rising faster than predicted, that temperature increases have been close to predicted and underestimated as often as they've been overestimated (and well within the predicted range of results for the past two decades).

There's basically two choices here; that there's a global conspiracy which almost all scientists are in on and therefore they are lying about basic data, or that the IPCC, despite whatever criticisms one may wish to accuse them of in methodology, has nonetheless managed to be consistently close to the mark and overall erred much more on the side of caution than on the side of alarmism.

I wouldn't use the term conspiracy - I'm not sure it's an either/or as you put it. Again, the discussion is laid out very clearly in Koonin's book. Read it, as I have, and come to your own conclusions. Part of what's unsettled definitely seems to apply to the accuracy of observations. For instance, some people insist tornado and hurricane activity are increasing rapidly. Some insist they're down, but detection of more minor events is better. A major part of the argument is whether things that are happening right in front of us are being accurately measured. You can easily find charts that show entirely opposite claims about the same phenomenon.

That said...

What I'm trying to point out, rather than get into the whole climate/CO2 debate, is that there is a cost to assuming as fact that there is a crisis.

If you insist that there is a crisis and that assumption is reasonable, my answer is, okay, let's talk about Koonin's book, because he makes a strong case that it is not reasonable to assume those facts as proven.

I will also point out that many, many times over the last 30 years, politicians and members of the media have told us that scientists have insisted we only have X days or months or years to act, or there's no point in trying. Most of those deadlines are long past, yet, it seems we still have to act just as urgently. Perhaps we should stop listening to the Chicken Little argument and take our time here. Because the cost we've incurred by trying to act now is enormous and only getting higher. Wind and solar are not going to get us there.

[flere-imsaho]

Hold up, we're giving credence on climate change to a theoretical physicist with no professional experience in climate science who also spent 8 years in a high-level executive position for BP and whose books have been roundly criticized for a litany of unsupported assertions by actual climate scientists?

OK. I'm going to wander over to the NFL Offseason thread and claim to know as much as a NFL GM (I mean, I've spent the last 10 years in-and-out of corporate boardrooms, so that's pretty much the same thing) and see if Jim will take me seriously.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Hold up, we're giving credence on climate change to a theoretical physicist with no professional experience in climate science who also spent 8 years in a high-level executive position for BP and whose books have been roundly criticized for a litany of unsupported assertions by actual climate scientists?

OK. I'm going to wander over to the NFL Offseason thread and claim to know as much as a NFL GM (I mean, I've spent the last 10 years in-and-out of corporate boardrooms, so that's pretty much the same thing) and see if Jim will take me seriously.

Flere, I think I need to read your book and do my research because the only person who can possibly lay it out is you and only in a book-long format and I can't possibly dispute any major point without spending days doing that. There's no way you could lay it out in, say, a few digestible paragraphs, that, sure, won't be as comprehensive as a book but it would allow for continued debate or scrutiny on the merits of the salient points.

SI

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It isn't about changing minds or making claims, other than that those saying that there is a crisis have not made their case.

Yes they have actually. Overwhelmingly and repeatedly. Not in this thread, but it most definitely has happened.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

A major part of the argument is whether things that are happening right in front of us are being accurately measured. You can easily find charts that show entirely opposite claims about the same phenomenon.

All that tells me is that there are people who distort facts and statistics. Which - I mean, that's been the case as long as facts and statistics have existed. Any specific claims you want to cite from the book I will address. 'Go read the book' is not a particularly compelling argument, because - let's say I or someone else does that. We could come back here and refute any number of points, and it's easy to then just say 'you're cherry-picking X number of things in a larger argument'. Unlike some others here, I'm not going into shoot-the-messenger mode; I don't really care about Koonin's credentials or lack thereof. I know what it's like to have one's beliefs mocked around here

I do care about the evidence backing up what he says. I've read all manner of bad arguments from climate change skeptics - from 'plants need lots of CO2' which ignores the effects on warming, general climate patterns for optimal agriculture, flooding coastal areas where billions of poor people currently reside, etc.; to 'more water is good for plants' which ignores the fact that more frequent downpours of high quantity rain is actually quite bad for the most part, it's like a human feeding themselves on nothing but bread will have a problem with scurvy quite quickly; to 'there are natural fluctuations in the environment', which there are, but we also have quite a bit of info on how much CO2 has historically been in the atmosphere and what happens when it gets too high, and we know that the primary driver of current changes in those levels is human activity not natural patterns. Etc. Without specific claims that he's made on key points which can be rationally assessed, it can't be decided how useful his claims are.

If there's evidence that observations of sea level rise, of temperature rise, of greenhouse gas concentrations, of ice melting, of hurricanes to use your example, of other sets of data across the board being observed incorrectly then let's see that evidence and assess it. I say these are all observable phenomena that have been overwhelmingly demonstrated to be occurring in the aggregate. That claim is either true, or it's not. What evidence do we have that it's not? If it's an isolated example of one or two fields and the evidence is murky there, we can dismiss those areas and it doesn't affect the larger issue one iota because climate change science is supported by multiple lines of evidence from multiple disciplines, pulling out one brick doesn't make the whole house collapse. If it did, I would still be a skeptic. That's why conspiracy is really the only other alternative here.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I will also point out that many, many times over the last 30 years, politicians and members of the media have told us that scientists have insisted we only have X days or months or years to act, or there's no point in trying.

There have always been irresponsible politicians and members of the media. As far as you've described it, this is also partially correct; a considerable amount of damage has already been done and it's too late to undo all of it. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea to stop even worse damage from occurring. It's like saying 'well, this house can't be saved, let's not even try putting out the fire and ignore the fact that it'll spread to other houses if we don't'

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Because the cost we've incurred by trying to act now is enormous and only getting higher.

We've done incredibly little to try to act now and the cost has been incredibly small. Particularly when compared to the cost of not acting.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Yes they have actually. Overwhelmingly and repeatedly. Not in this thread, but it most definitely has happened.

Since that is the actual point of Koonin's book and my reason for introducing it into this discussion, we have to start there. But how, other than reading it and presenting it, piece by piece? Do you want to do that? Can we, without laying waste to copyright law?

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

We've done incredibly little to try to act now and the cost has been incredibly small. Particularly when compared to the cost of not acting.

(reordering your quote above, hopefully not changing the context in any way).

What is the cost, then? To Ukraine, everything. So we probably dispute that energy insecurity in the EU gave Putin the ability to launch his campaign to restore czarist-era Russia.

To the EU, it's already unaffordable energy for many, with rationing coming within a year and the imminent failure of the energy grid.

For the US, we're a few years behind the EU, but that's the apparent direction.

If you care about equality, keep in mind that the impacts of these policies will be felt far more acutely by those without great means. Not the politicians themselves or the wealthy. This will absolutely increase any wealth and power gap you can imagine.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That doesn't mean it's not a good idea to stop even worse damage from occurring. It's like saying 'well, this house can't be saved, let's not even try putting out the fire and ignore the fact that it'll spread to other houses if we don't'

That's not how it has been presented. It's always, "if we don't do X within Y time frame, the world ends." And it doesn't. So we have time. Why continue to trust the same Chicken Littles when it comes to a time frame?

That time frame is everything.

So here we are, sitting at the Poker Table of Life, and because our politicians Believe in these assertions that we don't have time, we are all-in on a bluff.

What's that bluff? Three-fold. It's A, that battery technology will advance and scale quickly enough so that the power grid can rely on it when unreliable sources of energy lie dormant.

It's B, that we can afford to build and maintain expensive new sources of this unreliable energy at a scale we can't even comprehend. Where are we even going to secure the rare-earth metals necessary? Where will we get the energy necessary to construct the materials? How will we maintain and replace these vast structures?

It's C, that even if we're somewhat successful, if we were right in the first place, the world still ends because it's so clear that the world's new superpower couldn't care less about CO2 levels. They are building new coal plants far faster than the EU can scrap them. When we need more rare-earth metals and we refuse to mine them ourselves, why will China sell them to us and if they will, what's the cost?

But if we admit that we have time - the world has done just fine for billions of years, and at temperatures far hotter and far colder than today's - then we can see the value of today's renewables for what they are and keep working on new technologies.

If we don't have time, we remain all-in with no chance whatsoever of winning. CO2 levels will continue to rise, so the world ends regardless of our actions, and our energy grid will collapse.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

All that tells me is that there are people who distort facts and statistics. Which - I mean, that's been the case as long as facts and statistics have existed. Any specific claims you want to cite from the book I will address. 'Go read the book' is not a particularly compelling argument, because - let's say I or someone else does that. We could come back here and refute any number of points, and it's easy to then just say 'you're cherry-picking X number of things in a larger argument'.

Yeah, of course. That's why I don't think there's a point to it. But if you really would like to do it, it quickly isn't even close to an "Invasion of Ukraine" topic. The connection to this topic is solely in the "what is the cost" topic, which isn't even part of the book.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Unlike some others here, I'm not going into shoot-the-messenger mode; I don't really care about Koonin's credentials or lack thereof. I know what it's like to have one's beliefs mocked around here

I hate the term Belief. I admit I'm skeptical of a lot of things, but it amounts to wanting to know more. I learned a lot about the science behind the climate change argument from Koonin. How the greenhouse gas mechanism works. Why something seemingly so insignificant (the tiny percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere doubling), in theory, could be part of the global temperature equation. Koonin says it is, but also explains why the UN's latest assessments could be faulty.

I'm not sure why his credentials are questioned. He is an expert in several related fields, and climate science is the combination of so many fields it's hard to even count them. Some might say his employment at BP immediately prior to his appointment to Obama's Department of Energy is a disqualifier. But at BP, his role was chief scientist in charge of developing renewable energy sources. The energy companies are quite involved in these developments. Who would want to be left out of the future? IBM was a typewriter company at one point. Amazon was pretty much a bookstore and nothing else.

Anyway, his book and his other work is not climate research. Like the UN IPCC, he takes existing studies and discusses them. Unlike the UN IPCC, he concludes that the debate is Unsettled and that it's highly unlikely we are in crisis.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I do care about the evidence backing up what he says. I've read all manner of bad arguments from climate change skeptics

That's what he's trying to do in his book. Both take that evidence, but also discuss the process itself. If you want to create that separate topic here and we can figure out a way not to abuse the copyright, I'm game, even though your "bad arguments from climate change skeptics" comment has me near-certain of how you'll participate. I've certainly been mocked enough myself. I'll even start the mocking - you certainly don't want to ask me to create an "innovative" new UI for presenting the book.

There are dozens of subtopics there to address, ranging from temperature (the original concern) to severe weather to sea level to the research process to the role of energy companies to the behavior of other countries.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I say these are all observable phenomena that have been overwhelmingly demonstrated to be occurring in the aggregate. That claim is either true, or it's not. What evidence do we have that it's not?

The onus of showing human cause for a phenomenon is on the person making the claim. But you'd think it's true that all observable phenomena is easily observed. Sea-level, or even something as seemingly simple as temperature... not so easy. And then you get into the recreation of the climate since the last ice age... it gets downright crazy.

Sure, there's a truth in there somewhere. But who decides what's convincing and what's a bad argument?

[flere-imsaho]

From 6 1/2 years ago: Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

Worth noting that the 2019 survey of scientific literature found 100% of articles supported the notion that global warming was caused by man (up from a paltry 97% in 2015).

Maybe if we took all the money being used to bribe scientists to produce peer-reviewed studies showing that global warming is caused by humans and used it to combat global warming itself, we could solve it!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

From 6 1/2 years ago: Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

Worth noting that the 2019 survey of scientific literature found 100% of articles supported the notion that global warming was caused by man (up from a paltry 97% in 2015).

Maybe if we took all the money being used to bribe scientists to produce peer-reviewed studies showing that global warming is caused by humans and used it to combat global warming itself, we could solve it!

But have you read the book by the *checks notes* head scientist at BP?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That's not how it has been presented. It's always, "if we don't do X within Y time frame, the world ends." And it doesn't. So we have time.

Again, this just flat-out is not true. What statement, by who, made when?

For example, from the IPCC just because that's been mentioned:

Originally Posted by Dr. Friedericke Otto

Lowering global warming really minimises the likelihood of hitting these tipping points. We are not doomed

Originally Posted by Carolina Vera

we are already living the consequences of climate change everywhere. But we will experience further and concurrent changes that increase with every additional beat of warming.

Etc. The kind of claim you made above is really hard to square with what actual scientists actually say, and it's definitely not the case that they typically mischaracterize the way you've described. There are points at which you've done enough damage that some consequences can't be reversed. Melting of polar ice is one example, because a lot of that ain't refreezing this side of an ice age. But it can be slowed down by appropriate action, and possibly some of it preserved if that action is fast enough and significant enough. Some consequences can be avoided

The other part is that climate change isn't about taking an action now and seeing a result now. Results happen largely decades and centuries later, just like if you smoke too much it's eventually going to cause you problems, but you're not dying from lung cancer the second you take your first puff on a cigarette.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That's why I don't think there's a point to it

As I said before, why even talk about Ukraine then? Why talk about Keystone XL? Why talk about any of it? If talking about climate change is pointless, so are those subjects.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

When we need more rare-earth metals and we refuse to mine them ourselves, why will China sell them to us and if they will, what's the cost?

This is at least the third, and probably more, times you've brought this up. There are two possibilities at this point. Either you're not reading what I've posted about it, or you are ignoring it. Nobody here is arguing in favor of us refusing to mine what we need and just buying it from China. Nobody has said that. It's become increasingly difficult for me to believe that you are taking the discussion seriously, when you keep making the same points and ignoring the answers I've given.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

if we admit that we have time - the world has done just fine for billions of years, and at temperatures far hotter and far colder than today's - then we can see the value of today's renewables for what they are and keep working on new technologies.

If we don't have time, we remain all-in with no chance whatsoever of winning. CO2 levels will continue to rise, so the world ends regardless of our actions, and our energy grid will collapse.

Climate scientists don't talk about the world ending. I don't know why you keep using that phrase. Of course the planet has been just fine at hotter temperatures, that's beside the point. The point is how habitable that world is for humanity and, to a lesser degree, other species currently living on it. The point is that 40% of the world's population lives in areas projected to be underwater within the next century if current trends hold (and in general they are not holding but accelerating), and most of those people are extremely poor. Again, that result positively dwarfs any impacts now from cutting back.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Sea-level, or even something as seemingly simple as temperature... not so easy

Yes, it actually really is pretty easy with modern techniques and tools for measuring with an extremely high degree of reliability and precision. Not on all matters certainly. But sea level and temperature and a number of others we are extremely good at tracking. Many scientific advances are made regularly humanity that require far more difficult scientific feats than measuring these types of elements. If we were as incapable scientifically as this implied, a lot of items people utilize on a regular basis and take for granted would not exist.

[Solecismic]

Perhaps it wouldn't seem repetitive if you read Koonin's book. It's just "denier, I'll find links that refute anything you can provide," over and over. That's why it seems like a pointless exercise.

I understand you don't want to read it. I think it's valuable because it outlines the case that the science is anything but settled here. If you like, I'll stop mentioning it. We can agree to disagree on whether the science is settled and there is unquestionably a crisis.

Plenty of politicians and world leaders and even royalty have repeatedly claimed over the years that there are points when it's too late to save the planet. Just look at Prince Charles for one - he's done it a number of times, and when one clock is about to expire, he starts another one. It's not hard to find those quotes if you're interested.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/01/cop2...te-crisis.html

Secretary-General's statement on the IPCC Working Group 1 Report on the Physical Science Basis of the Sixth Assessment | United Nations Secretary-General

I know we're well into that "12-year" clock from the IPCC. If we don't reduce emissions by a large percentage by 2030, it's too late to prevent catastrophic results. I think it was AOC who said "the world's going to end" at that point - perhaps her take is not the common one. But given China, India, Russia, there's no way, no matter what the EU and the US does, that we'll get even remotely close to that goal.

So why even try? Seems a better bet to play the long game, even from your perspective that the science is settled. Because Pascal's Wager works very well then. Just transfer one tenth of the money being spent on wind power to renewables research and hope you're wrong about the catastrophes.

But I get it. You feel we have to take immediate action to avoid some sort of crisis, even though the IPCC says we can't. The leaders of many countries agree. Therefore, it's being done. The cost of these actions seems extraordinary. You feel it's worth the cost. I don't.

Regarding mining. Biden talks a good game lately, but he has canceled approved projects that would make it more likely that we could those needs.

This, from the day before Russia attacked Ukraine:

https://gov.alaska.gov/newsroom/2022...f-ambler-road/

Biden further blocked this work last month, suspending approval of the road.

The administration is blocking numerous other projects, such as the Ioneer Lithium mine in Nevada, Twin Metals in Minnesota, the Resolution Copper Mine in Arizona.

The result, continued dependence on unfriendly sources for critical materials.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As I said before, why even talk about Ukraine then? Why talk about Keystone XL? Why talk about any of it? If talking about climate change is pointless, so are those subjects.

The argument that we can settle anything on a forum like this... sure, pointless. Whatever. I wouldn't start an item on the existence or non-existence of a god, either. Or debate the hotness of certain teenage women, though that seems more popular here.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The point is that 40% of the world's population lives in areas projected to be underwater within the next century if current trends hold (and in general they are not holding but accelerating), and most of those people are extremely poor. Again, that result positively dwarfs any impacts now from cutting back.

This would be one example of disagreeing on basics.

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents

I think we can agree that there eventually will be another ice age and that we're on the up-cycle up from the last ice age. Sea level is about 400 feet higher than it was during the last ice age. It is generally going up at a rate of close to 1 foot per century.

The above chart shows steady increases along those lines. However, it's easy to find stories like this one:

Sea level rise in New York | WAMC

So you look at the first chart, and you see a steady trend covering 160 years. But look at the year-by-year points within that trend, and you can easily construct a line (late '70s to late '00s) and make some sort of case that there's an alarming increase in this rate. Now, extrapolate, and you've got yourself a hockey stick. Crisis proved.

Now, do the opposite. Take the high in the late '00s and draw a line to the most recent measurement. Whoa... decline in sea level. Let's extrapolate that and we're on our way to another ice age, using similarly dramatic reasoning.

At any rate, civilizations are often built close to water because it's more pleasant, often easier to access, often easier to irrigate. If the sea level is rising a foot per century, that's plenty of time to adjust. If not, then it's on the planners who thought it was a good idea to build there to begin with. Read about the Netherlands if you like. They're pretty good at maintaining cities that should be under water by now.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Regarding mining. Biden talks a good game lately, but he has canceled approved projects that would make it more likely that we could those needs.

This, from the day before Russia attacked Ukraine:

https://gov.alaska.gov/newsroom/2022...f-ambler-road/

Biden further blocked this work last month, suspending approval of the road.

The administration is blocking numerous other projects, such as the Ioneer Lithium mine in Nevada, Twin Metals in Minnesota, the Resolution Copper Mine in Arizona.

The result, continued dependence on unfriendly sources for critical materials.

Ambler Road is a near $1 billion taxpayer funded project that helps a private Canadian mining company gain better access to our land. Ioneer is an Australian mining company. So is Resolution. Twin Metals is a Chilean company (who's CEO is so tied in with Russian oligarchs, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Friendship by Putin).

Not really sure how using our land and tax dollars to help foreign companies mine minerals that they will sell to the highest bidder is beneficial to Americans.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecsmic

transfer one tenth of the money being spent on wind power to renewables research and hope you're wrong about the catastrophes.

That's about $15 billion. Enough to do almost nothing.

Originally Posted by Solecsmic

You feel we have to take immediate action to avoid some sort of crisis, even though the IPCC says we can't. The leaders of many countries agree. Therefore, it's being done. The cost of these actions seems extraordinary. You feel it's worth the cost. I don't.

The costs of actually doing what's necessary would be extraordinary. The costs of what we're actually doing are tiny. Australia is digging up fossil fuels as fast as it can, including abusing their poorer neighbors to do it. Not that we have any room to judge them on that, but it's a fact. The EU gets over 70% of it's energy from fossil fuels in one form or another, less than 14% from nuclear, less than 16% from renewables, as of 2019. I don't understand what you are talking about. Extraordinary costs? I'd be hard pressed to call anything currently being done going so far as 'bothering to lift a finger'.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Perhaps it wouldn't seem repetitive if you read Koonin's book.

The repetitiveness doesn't have anything to do with the book. What it has to do with is repeating claims and not at all addressing the counterpoint. Happened again with citing Biden on mining, when I haven't at all been defending current US energy policy on the whole or saying we shouldn't mine. The straw-manning here is astounding to me.

What's the appropriate response in your opinion to claims that contradict available evidence and utilize flawed logic? Throw up your hands and say 'well, we've each got our own opinion'? You don't seem to have a problem being quite dogmatic about the claims you wish to make, but it's an issue for other people to back up what they think or else they are in close-minded/'denier' territory? That's hardly a fair approach.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Plenty of politicians and world leaders and even royalty have repeatedly claimed over the years that there are points when it's too late to save the planet.

Sure, and plenty of them have made more reasonable statements too. I'm not carrying water for politicians. Some politicians, and even some scientists making irresponsible claims does not at all back up the assertion you previously made. What Prince Charles, AOC, et al say doesn't have the first thing to do with a rational assessment about what the scientific community presently claims as a whole. Boris Johnson didn't say the world was going to end in the link you posted, and the UN didn't say that in the link you posted there either.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

given China, India, Russia, there's no way, no matter what the EU and the US does, that we'll get even remotely close to that goal.

We'll still get closer than we will by not acting. The choice isn't between a perfect scenario and the extinction of the species. The world will go on and so will humanity. The choice is where are we going to fall on the continuum that lies between those two extremes. 'Other people aren't going to take action' is not an excuse for us to not take action. And every movement has to start somewhere.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So you look at the first chart, and you see a steady trend covering 160 years. But look at the year-by-year points within that trend, and you can easily construct a line (late '70s to late '00s) and make some sort of case that there's an alarming increase in this rate. Now, extrapolate, and you've got yourself a hockey stick. Crisis proved.

That's not what predictions of sea level rise are based on though. They aren't based on a short-term trend and extrapolation of that. That would be a very simplistic and unscientific use of data. Of course it is a factor in most of the models (and again, IPCC models for quite a while now have underestimated sea level rise), but they're based primarily on more fundamental elements such as trends in relevant emissions; the accelerating and unprecedented in the scientific era rate of melting of polar ice. The water has to go somewhere. The well-established scientific fact that the world's oceans act as a carbon sink, meaning that the more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more upwards pressure there will be on sea levels which absorb 25-30% of the annual emissions - until the point of saturation is approached, at which point warming will accelerate. The oceans are becoming less alkaline as a result, and not because we postulate they are. The Great Barrier Reef is declining as a result, and experiments have demonstrated the negative results of this effect as well. It's not hard to see why someone would question the scientific consensus based on this sort of simplistic and inaccurate description, but it's a totally different picture when you examine what the actual conclusions are and what goes into them.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I understand you don't want to read it. I think it's valuable because it outlines the case that the science is anything but settled here.

FWIW, I wouldn't mind reading it if I thought it would do any good. But as others have pointed out, me/us reading it wouldn't do anything you couldn't just do by quoting key sections from it. You could point out the salient points you think it makes and we could discuss those without any copyright issues, and me reading it wouldn't get any further than that.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The repetitiveness doesn't have anything to do with the book. What it has to do with is repeating claims and not at all addressing the counterpoint. Happened again with citing Biden on mining, when I haven't at all been defending current US energy policy on the whole or saying we shouldn't mine. The straw-manning here is astounding to me.

What's the appropriate response in your opinion to claims that contradict available evidence and utilize flawed logic? Throw up your hands and say 'well, we've each got our own opinion'? You don't seem to have a problem being quite dogmatic about the claims you wish to make, but it's an issue for other people to back up what they think or else they are in close-minded/'denier' territory? That's hardly a fair approach.

Posting a piece of an argument when the answer is that a chapter of Koonin's book, which would run 10-15 pages, addresses exactly that question, may not be how formal debates work, but I don't know what else to say.

My opinion doesn't matter one bit. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. If you don't accept that these questions are hardly settled, it's a pointless argument because I'm not an expert myself. So, yeah, throwing my hands up. Why not? You're claiming something you haven't read is flawed logic. I'm inviting you to address it directly because I'm not the one claiming that higher CO2 levels are, without question, so devastating that we have to sacrifice energy security.

I'm not straw-manning you. I'm merely adding that our government is committed to this process. We can't even refine much of what we mine. We have to ship it abroad and make arrangements with companies all over the world to get it back. We are a long, long way from addressing materials shortages and it's not a straw-man at all to mention that as part of the cost of eliminating fossil fuels, we don't have secure supplies of necessary materials. Nickel? Lithium? Who knows how we'll get enough.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Boris Johnson didn't say the world was going to end in the link you posted, and the UN didn't say that in the link you posted there either....

Other people aren't going to take action' is not an excuse for us to not take action. And every movement has to start somewhere.

What they did say was that in 2030, it would be too late to prevent catastrophe if emissions weren't reduced by a percentage that's completely impossible given China, Russia and India, among others. AOC and other politicians, members of media, celebrities, influencers, etc, added the end of the world part.

Every movement has to start somewhere, sure, but why sacrifice everything for one that the IPCC says is going to fail. And if China reduces their own emissions (since they're quickly adding coal plants, that's not a reasonable hope), how are the materials necessary for renewable energy going to get produced?

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

We'll still get closer than we will by not acting. The choice isn't between a perfect scenario and the extinction of the species. The world will go on and so will humanity. The choice is where are we going to fall on the continuum that lies between those two extremes.

Wouldn't it be better to throw as much as we can into research, then? If we're going to have catastrophe no matter what, and that's not extinction, then we have time. And (I go back to Unsettled), there's a good chance catastrophe won't happen. So it's far better to keep researching and not eliminate energy security for a temporary solution that's already causing serious issues.

Especially when this will impact the poor far more than it will impact the rich.

Of course, we disagree on whether Putin's aggression is one of those issues, and we probably disagree on whether wind can ever be relied upon for much more than the fraction of total power it's relied upon today.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's not what predictions of sea level rise are based on though. They aren't based on a short-term trend and extrapolation of that. That is a factor in most of the models (and again, IPCC models for quite a while now have underestimated sea level rise) They're based on more fundamental elements; the accelerating and unprecedented in the scientific era rate of melting of polar ice. The water has to go somewhere. The well-established scientific fact that the world's oceans act as a carbon sink, meaning that the more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more upwards pressure there will be on sea levels which absorb 25-30% of the annual emissions - until the point of saturation is approached, at which point warming will accelerate. The oceans are becoming less alkaline as a result, and not because we postulate they are. The Great Barrier Reef is declining as a result, and experiments have demonstrated the negative results of this effect as well.

There are also questions as to how much CO2 has to do with warming, and certainly questions as to whether the recent studies of the Great Barrier Reef indicate that it's in decline.

Computer models indicate the carbon sink issue will dramatically change sea level. But CO2 levels have been much, much higher than they are today or could be even in 500 years and that didn't seem to be the case. Sea level rise has been very steady with the expected reduction in arctic ice. The trend line is steady and there are long-term cycles as well. Even the RPC 8.5, which is based on the newer models, only doubles sea level rise to two feet per century. That has to be considered worst case, since the models themselves all "run hot."

Let's say two feet per century if the one foot we've observed for the last 160 years isn't accurate (it never hurts to plan for more). This is a city planning issue, not a catastrophe. Sea level will rise and fall, more rise than fall coming out of an ice age. Climate changes.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm inviting you to address it directly because I'm not the one claiming that higher CO2 levels are, without question, so devastating that we have to sacrifice energy security.

I'll just end with this. I have said several times now in different ways that I'm not in favor of sacrificing energy security. You continue to claim that I'm saying that in the face of these statements, and then say you're not straw-manning which is the literal definition of what you continue to do.

Under these circumstances it simply is not within my power to productively continue.

[Lathum]

So is the war still going on? Hard to tell...

[Kodos]

I gotta say, I simply don’t have the energy to argue with someone who is obviously entrenched in their position and will not move from it despite any and all evidence.

[Fidatelo]

Does Koonin's book say anything about whether the war in Ukraine is still happening?

[sterlingice]

Unfortunately, yeah, it is. Basically Russia is continuing to slowly destroy Mariupol block-by-block, basically reducing it to rubble, so they can finish their land bridge between Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk

SI

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Does Koonin's book say anything about whether the war in Ukraine is still happening?

LOL, yes, this thread has somehow been hijacked to the global warming discussion.

[BYU 14]

I think someone just accidentally misspelled the Climate change thread as "Invasion of Ukraine"

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'll just end with this. I have said several times now in different ways that I'm not in favor of sacrificing energy security. You continue to claim that I'm saying that in the face of these statements, and then say you're not straw-manning which is the literal definition of what you continue to do.

Under these circumstances it simply is not within my power to productively continue.

Oh, is that what you were referring to? When you say act now on the CO2 issue, I thought that's what you meant. If there's a way to to meet emissions goals without sacrificing energy security, that's news to me. And the only reason why it's relevant to the Ukraine invasion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Unfortunately, yeah, it is. Basically Russia is continuing to slowly destroy Mariupol block-by-block, basically reducing it to rubble, so they can finish their land bridge between Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk

SI

The costs to rebuild are going to be astronomical. There is going to be nothing left of some of these towns/cities.

[sterlingice]

I don't know if there is a path to rebuild Mariupol. I think this is literally Russia going scorched earth, treating the city like a military base that needs to be destroyed because it's one of the few things standing in the way of connecting the provinces they want. I'm also not sure there's a way for Ukraine to defend and/or rescue it. Russia is content to just slowly grind a city of almost 500K into dust.

Just looking at comparable cities/MSAs in the US - it would be like if some military was content to just surround, starve, and slowly bombard Reno, Springfield (MO), Brownsville, or Anchorage until they were gone and then they could just roll over them into the rest of the state.

SI

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't know if there is a path to rebuild Mariupol. I think this is literally Russia going scorched earth, treating the city like a military base that needs to be destroyed because it's one of the few things standing in the way of connecting the provinces they want. I'm also not sure there's a way for Ukraine to defend and/or rescue it. Russia is content to just slowly grind a city of almost 500K into dust.

Just looking at comparable cities/MSAs in the US - it would be like if some military was content to just surround, starve, and slowly bombard Reno, Springfield (MO), Brownsville, or Anchorage until they were gone and then they could just roll over them into the rest of the state.

SI

Eliminating this city entirely definitely serves a big strategic purpose for Russia, and beyond that it is the literal spurned lover syndrome of if I can't have you no one else can by Putin. He now knows he is not winning this war in the traditional sense, so it is just about inflicting as much irreparable damage as possible, so Ukraine will be weak and vulnerable for years to come. Then he can leave and just let the separatist groups there wreak havoc.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Eliminating this city entirely definitely serves a big strategic purpose for Russia, and beyond that it is the literal spurned lover syndrome of if I can't have you no one else can by Putin. He now knows he is not winning this war in the traditional sense, so it is just about inflicting as much irreparable damage as possible, so Ukraine will be weak and vulnerable for years to come. Then he can leave and just let the separatist groups there wreak havoc.

If I lived there, you can bet I wouldn't move back and rebuild from scratch as soon as the war is over. So entire regions will likely become ghost towns, as the cost to rebuild is probably too high.

[NobodyHere]

Well Russia didn't want this to happen:

Report: Sweden and Finland to join NATO over Ukraine invasion

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mota

If I lived there, you can bet I wouldn't move back and rebuild from scratch as soon as the war is over. So entire regions will likely become ghost towns, as the cost to rebuild is probably too high.

The reports are bleak. Seems like they are just executing civilians left and right who stayed behind.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I gotta say, I simply don’t have the energy to argue with someone who is obviously entrenched in their position and will not move from it despite any and all evidence.

I'm very sympathetic to him on this point. As Christopher Hitchens said, don't take refuge in the false security of consensus. There are important issues on which 50 years from now what is 'obviously true' today will be looked upon as incredibly ignorant, and people will wonder how we could have been so blind.

Originally Posted by Mota

If I lived there, you can bet I wouldn't move back and rebuild from scratch as soon as the war is over. So entire regions will likely become ghost towns, as the cost to rebuild is probably too high.

Unfortunately true.

I hope this war reminds all of us for a while that it's dangerous to assume foreign leaders are going to behave as rational actors. They usually do, but when they don't ... the costs are staggeringly high.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm very sympathetic to him on this point. As Christopher Hitchens said, don't take refuge in the false security of consensus. There are important issues on which 50 years from now what is 'obviously true' today will be looked upon as incredibly ignorant, and people will wonder how we could have been so blind.

The irony is, I see it quite the same way. That there's much evidence that the persistent narrative we see in the media and from politicians isn't really a consensus that's matched among scientists. That of the people on this part of the forum, I'm least likely to be entrenched in a position and unwilling to risk arguments that might change my mind.

I remain open, as I've said three times now, to another item where we discuss these issues. I don't want to keep bringing this item away from Ukraine - even though I think the issues have a strong link (and no, this is not part of a book, though that was a good line) - which was why I made that offer.

But I'm aware that there is so much comfort taken from perceived consensus that it's simply easier to dismiss my skepticism as stupidity or stubbornness. And I'm also aware that debate between non-experts on a forum where almost everyone is anonymous is rarely productive.

I also should stop responding, as I am now, when I think I need to clarify positions. I am very aware that I would be a terrible politician.

[GrantDawg]

There are reports saying that chemical weapons have been used in Mariupol.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That of the people on this part of the forum, I'm least likely to be entrenched in a position and unwilling to risk arguments that might change my mind.

Not to be rude, but whatchyou talkin' 'bout Willis? This forum contains people that have changed their position on this very subject as noted in the Global Warming thread. Get outta here with your "I'm more open minded than you sheeple" argument.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That there's much evidence that the persistent narrative we see in the media and from politicians isn't really a consensus that's matched among scientists.

I mean, we disproved this comprehensively about 7 or 8 years ago in the global warming thread, but, you know, here's another source*: Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.

Or maybe a study of peer-reviewed literature on the subject? Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience

Maybe a graph?





*sourcing, something you fail to do at all, unless directing people to a book that's been comprehensively debunked by climate scientists is your version of it.

[molson]

I'm going to wait until it gets to around an 114% consensus before I adopt a viewpoint. I'm open-minded, not like the rest of you.

[sterlingice]

Yes, but if you claim the scientific peer-review process that reaches that consensus is completely flawed than no percentage will change your mind.

EDIT: Though it's more than a smidge disingenuous to complain when your singular source is being held to a base level of scrutiny but then basically say "every other source out there is flawed because the whole process is flawed". There's definitely no hypocrisy there.

SI

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm going to wait until it gets to around an 114% consensus before I adopt a viewpoint. I'm open-minded, not like the rest of you.

You might be waiting a long time. It looks like consensus has been falling since 2019...

[Kodos]

A whole 1.3%... I'm confident some of that is industry-planted people who are paid to sew doubt. Just like the cigarette industry and food producers try to muddy the waters with research designed to confuse the public into throwing their hands in the air and just eating/smoking whatever they want.

[molson]

I honestly didn't realize this was something regular people debated anymore. I thought it was more of a flat earther/Sandy Hook truther kind of thing.