User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Stuck Between Doom and Denial

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 751,045, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 87.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    475974
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    215,012
    Points
    751,045
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    139,359
    Thanked 126,958x in 81,785 Posts
    Mentioned
    2464 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Stuck Between Doom and Denial

    Why accept one or the other? I identify as a "luke-warmist."

    It is important to remember that the eggheads at the IPCC have around a dozen climate models and only the few drastic ones are touted by the politicians and the political scientists (those captured by the grant money).

    Stuck Between Doom and Denial

    In a recent interview in New York Times Magazine, energy expert and polymath Vaclav Smil found himself being pressured by his interviewer to acknowledge that climate change was either a catastrophe or not a problem. The famously cantankerous Smil bristled at the framing: “I cannot tell you that we don’t have a problem because we do have a problem. But I cannot tell you it’s the end of the world by next Monday because it is not the end of the world by next Monday. What’s the point of you pressing me to belong to one of these groups?”

    For well over a decade, the American debate over climate change has largely been a battle between two extremes: those who view climate change apocalyptically, and those castigated as deniers of climate science. In institutions of science and in the mainstream media, we see the celebration of the catastrophists and the denigration of the deniers. Predictably, the categories map neatly onto the extremes of left-versus-right politics. The most apt characterization of this polarized framing is as a kind of Manichean paranoia — a politics defined by the belief that the debate is really a battle of absolute good against absolute evil over the future of the world.

    ***
    Koonin’s elevator pitch has him off to a good start: “Climate and energy are complex and nuanced subjects. Simplistic descriptions of ‘the problem’ or putative ‘solutions’ will not result in wise choices.” Koonin is, of course, correct. Any issue that combines the energy-producing and -consuming habits of almost eight billion people with the intricacies of the physics, biology, chemistry, and habitation of global systems is not going to be simple.


    But from this call for recognizing complexity, Koonin arrives at his own simplistic conclusion:

    The impact of human influences on the climate is too uncertain (and very likely too small) compared to the daunting amount of change required to actually achieve the goal of eliminating net global emissions by, say, 2075…. I would wait until the science becomes more settled … before embarking on a program to tax or regulate greenhouse gas emissions out of existence or to capture and store massive amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

    For Koonin, the settledness of the science is the fulcrum on which rests the pursuit of policies intended to decarbonize the global economy. Of course, placing the science of climate change at the center of climate politics privileges the expertise of physicists like Koonin and of his fiercest opponents. Indeed, the only thing on which Koonin and his opponents seem to agree is the centrality of science in the climate debate. Politics — how things get done in a world where people and nations have diverse wants and needs — becomes peripheral.

    ***

    I have a great deal of sympathy for Koonin’s reaction. I have viewed the public treatment of climate science from the inside, as someone who for almost thirty years has produced peer-reviewed research in climate science and policy. I have seen my work filtered through the media, referenced in policy, and, most recently, cited in the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And, like Koonin, I have seen my work celebrated by some, and spun, attacked, and delegitimized by others.


    Koonin is absolutely correct that public representations of climate science often don’t square with consensus understandings of the scientific literature, such as those of the IPCC. To take a clear example: Most people are probably unaware that in 2021 there were fewer hurricane-strength tropical cyclones worldwide — that is, 37 hurricanes — than in any year since at least 1980. The IPCC has been consistent for decades in its conclusion that there is “low confidence” that we can discern any long-term trends of cyclone frequency and intensity. The panel has concluded much the same for floods, droughts, and tornadoes (although heat waves and extreme precipitation have increased). Yet, there remains ample public misperception promoted by the media and climate activists, including many scientists, that hurricanes, floods, and droughts have all become more common and more destructive. I understand Koonin’s frustrations.

    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Chris (08-05-2022),donttread (07-27-2022),RMNIXON (07-27-2022)

  3. #2
    Points: 150,873, Level: 93
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 3,177
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    donttread's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    85231
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    46,105
    Points
    150,873
    Level
    93
    Thanks Given
    11,903
    Thanked 17,196x in 12,524 Posts
    Mentioned
    292 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Why accept one or the other? I identify as a "luke-warmist."

    It is important to remember that the eggheads at the IPCC have around a dozen climate models and only the few drastic ones are touted by the politicians and the political scientists (those captured by the grant money).

    Stuck Between Doom and Denial

    In a recent interview in New York Times Magazine, energy expert and polymath Vaclav Smil found himself being pressured by his interviewer to acknowledge that climate change was either a catastrophe or not a problem. The famously cantankerous Smil bristled at the framing: “I cannot tell you that we don’t have a problem because we do have a problem. But I cannot tell you it’s the end of the world by next Monday because it is not the end of the world by next Monday. What’s the point of you pressing me to belong to one of these groups?”

    For well over a decade, the American debate over climate change has largely been a battle between two extremes: those who view climate change apocalyptically, and those castigated as deniers of climate science. In institutions of science and in the mainstream media, we see the celebration of the catastrophists and the denigration of the deniers. Predictably, the categories map neatly onto the extremes of left-versus-right politics. The most apt characterization of this polarized framing is as a kind of Manichean paranoia — a politics defined by the belief that the debate is really a battle of absolute good against absolute evil over the future of the world.

    ***
    Koonin’s elevator pitch has him off to a good start: “Climate and energy are complex and nuanced subjects. Simplistic descriptions of ‘the problem’ or putative ‘solutions’ will not result in wise choices.” Koonin is, of course, correct. Any issue that combines the energy-producing and -consuming habits of almost eight billion people with the intricacies of the physics, biology, chemistry, and habitation of global systems is not going to be simple.


    But from this call for recognizing complexity, Koonin arrives at his own simplistic conclusion:

    The impact of human influences on the climate is too uncertain (and very likely too small) compared to the daunting amount of change required to actually achieve the goal of eliminating net global emissions by, say, 2075…. I would wait until the science becomes more settled … before embarking on a program to tax or regulate greenhouse gas emissions out of existence or to capture and store massive amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

    For Koonin, the settledness of the science is the fulcrum on which rests the pursuit of policies intended to decarbonize the global economy. Of course, placing the science of climate change at the center of climate politics privileges the expertise of physicists like Koonin and of his fiercest opponents. Indeed, the only thing on which Koonin and his opponents seem to agree is the centrality of science in the climate debate. Politics — how things get done in a world where people and nations have diverse wants and needs — becomes peripheral.

    ***

    I have a great deal of sympathy for Koonin’s reaction. I have viewed the public treatment of climate science from the inside, as someone who for almost thirty years has produced peer-reviewed research in climate science and policy. I have seen my work filtered through the media, referenced in policy, and, most recently, cited in the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And, like Koonin, I have seen my work celebrated by some, and spun, attacked, and delegitimized by others.


    Koonin is absolutely correct that public representations of climate science often don’t square with consensus understandings of the scientific literature, such as those of the IPCC. To take a clear example: Most people are probably unaware that in 2021 there were fewer hurricane-strength tropical cyclones worldwide — that is, 37 hurricanes — than in any year since at least 1980. The IPCC has been consistent for decades in its conclusion that there is “low confidence” that we can discern any long-term trends of cyclone frequency and intensity. The panel has concluded much the same for floods, droughts, and tornadoes (although heat waves and extreme precipitation have increased). Yet, there remains ample public misperception promoted by the media and climate activists, including many scientists, that hurricanes, floods, and droughts have all become more common and more destructive. I understand Koonin’s frustrations.

    I'll identify as "ok it's getting warmer , so what?" LOL I do not believe that the projected global warming is enough to seriously disrupt the global food supply. In fact, the supply might increase.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to donttread For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (07-27-2022),MisterVeritis (08-05-2022),Peter1469 (07-27-2022)

  5. #3
    Points: 62,839, Level: 61
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 1,611
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    RMNIXON's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    19336
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    18,134
    Points
    62,839
    Level
    61
    Thanks Given
    18,997
    Thanked 19,326x in 11,207 Posts
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Those who have been making absurd predictions and alarmist false statements for decades are not apologizing. On the other hand if you even a tad skeptical and point out hypocrisy our and Climate Change Denier and possibly a dangerous person.

    When I see a level playing field I will play nice and listen to all sides.................
    Your Trump Derangement Syndrome is NOT my problem!

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to RMNIXON For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (07-27-2022)

  7. #4
    Points: 4,037, Level: 14
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 13.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    LWW's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    366
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    People's Midwest Republic of Ameristan
    Posts
    632
    Points
    4,037
    Level
    14
    Thanks Given
    135
    Thanked 356x in 234 Posts
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Global warming is real.

    All indications are that it will continue.

    That does not mean that we will have cooling periods. some lasting decades … such as the 1960’s and 1970’s.

    GW began as the most recent ice age, which we are still in, began to wind down. That was millennia ago.

    Those two points slay the man made global warming hypothesis.

    The science deniers use records since 1850 as ‘PROOF’ ignoring that this was the end of the most recent ‘LITTLE ICE AGE’ … ice melts as temperature increases. Who knew?

    Halting/rolling back GW is well beyond current technology.

    Time that should be used to prepare, is being wasted.

    Future generations will curse the Goremons for that.
    "Buy a man eat fish, the day, teach a man to a life time! "
    "As one computer said, if
    you're on the train and they say 'PORTAL BRIDGE' you know you better make other plans."
    - Joseph Robinette Biden -

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to LWW For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (08-05-2022)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts