Deaths from climate change

[ruffrecords]

If the arguments are just gossip from the internet, there's really no reason to refute anything. Hey, there seems to be a consensus among scientists that there is no climate problem...

I don't know, but none of the scientists I know personally, seem to follow that consensus.

“97% Consensus” — What Consensus? - CO2 Coalition

Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

Anyone who would take that 97% for real, is probably not a scientist.

I don't see why we seem to argue about details. Scientists do not agree on a lot of things. That usually means nobody has found the time to look into it.

Like the story of asphalt. During covid, some people suddenly could study a lot of things they couldn't before. During lockdown, there were hardly any cars on the road. So, a nice occasion to do some air quality measurements. That's how we learned asphalt is a major polluter. Not because there's so much carbo-hydrogens coming out of it, but because there's so much of it around.

It's all quite logical, if you think about it. Would be hard to check, if it wasn't for the lockdown.

The only major surprise was that it was still polluting at temperature below freezing point. Not as much, but more than expected.

And the amount of asphalt in the world, makes it to a serious problem.

Have a look at the air quality in your area:

https://aqicn.org/city/usa/illinois/desplns/
It's set to Despins, ILL, but that's random. Something seems to be burning there?

 

[JohnRoberts]

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

yup

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Anyone who would take that 97% for real, is probably not a scientist.

Well, pretty much every wild-eyed climate doom cultist I've encountered screeches something about "90+% of scientists agree! Reeee!" whenever you push back on their cherished beliefs. Similar "stats" appear in many (most?) news articles or broadcast segments on the topic as well. It has an affect on people (which is the point of propaganda).

I don't see why we seem to argue about details. Scientists do not agree on a lot of things. That usually means nobody has found the time to look into it.

Please. It isn't a detail. And "nobody has found time to look at it?" What kind of weak back-pedaling excuse is that?

Like the story of asphalt. During covid, some people suddenly could study a lot of things they couldn't before. During lockdown, there were hardly any cars on the road. So, a nice occasion to do some air quality measurements. That's how we learned asphalt is a major polluter. Not because there's so much carbo-hydrogens coming out of it, but because there's so much of it around.

It's all quite logical, if you think about it. Would be hard to check, if it wasn't for the lockdown.

Materials testing labs have unfettered access to large test patches of asphalt and other materials. It wasn't some imagined benefit of over-the-top lock down policies during Covid. Your intertwined narratives aren't helping you.

The only major surprise was that it was still polluting at temperature below freezing point. Not as much, but more than expected.

Simply look at the VOC components and their properties.

And the amount of asphalt in the world, makes it to a serious problem.

Everything is a problem. What's your solution? Unpaved roads, perhaps only using naturally occurring gravel? Mandatory AWD EVs that can navigate such "advanced" and equitable "roads?" Oh, I forgot! Hovercars for all!

Have a look at the air quality in your area:

https://aqicn.org/city/usa/illinois/desplns/
It's set to Despins, ILL, but that's random. Something seems to be burning there?

Closest points to me are 27-31.

 

[jabe]

Unpaved roads, perhaps only using naturally occurring gravel? Mandatory AWD EVs that can navigate such "advanced" and equitable "roads?" Oh, I forgot! Hovercars for all!

So much for facts over ridicule.

"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results." Not sure who's being quoted here, but scientific consensus is based on reproducible results. Yes it isn't infallible, and yes it often shifts over time with new information. That doesn't mean the lone voices in the wilderness are always the true sources of wisdom. Most of us aren't giving flat-earthers a serious shake either.

I though it was odd that everyone was citing 10+ year old studies to debunk the 97% consensus figure. It turns out we're up to over 99% now. Reeeeeee!
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
For fun I took a peek at the CO2 Coalition site. The first link on the site I clicked was their citation for a claim about beliefs about climate change amongst meteorologists. I was not shocked to find that they completely elided that per their own sources the rest of earth scientists are firmly with the consensus. I was also not shocked to find that the CO2 Coalition is funded by Koch, Mercer, etc. and touts appearances on Fox and Newsmax. Follow the money indeed. I quit peeking after that. Life is short.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Exxon, your favorite "big oil" company purchased Denbury a carbon dioxide pipeline company for 1,300 miles total of pipeline for carbon capture and transmission in several southern states. This CO2 gets injected into old oil fields to push out some more usable oil, while sequestering that evil CO2 underground.

Exxon is doing this to make money and win points with the ESG investing community. So you should like Exxon now?

JR

PS; I keep waiting for the public to wake up and I am slowly seeing progress. Today I read an article in the WSJ critical of the "yellow journalism" in weather reports. This was a new (to me) voice joining the chorus of the informed.

 

[Matador]

Not sure who's being quoted here, but scientific consensus is based on reproducible results.

It's from Michael Crichton, the renowned climate scientist.

To understand Flat Earthers, and other people who hold unconventional beliefs, we need to first consider what it means to “believe.” A belief is a cognitive representation of the nature of reality, encompassing our inner experiences, the world around us, and the world beyond. In 1965, Oxford philosophy professor H.H. Price distinguished between “believing in” and “believing that.”1 As summarized by John Byrne, author of the website Skeptical Medicine, “believing that” something is true is a relatively straightforward matter of looking at the evidence. “Seeing is believing” is one kind of “believing that.” In contrast, we “believe in” something when there’s no evidence and the belief isn’t falsifiable. Religious faith is a kind of “believing in.” Both types of believing are normal cognitive capacities, but can run amok when conflated, resulting in beliefs that are poor models of reality.

A denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing “confirmation bias” – the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest. Science is skepticism and good scientists are skeptical.

Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it - sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.

The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.
...
Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way. The first is the identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy...While conspiracy theories cannot simply be dismissed because conspiracies do occur, it beggars belief that they can encompass entire scientific communities.
...
The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Could somebody phrase this dispute as a scientific thesis that can be proved or disproved?
===
Does anybody notice or care that the government is spending Billions/Trillions on fighting climate change? I just read a piece in the newspaper that the government has a slush find of $26B (from the inflation reduction act) to spend on helping poor communities adapt to climate change. I wonder if my poor community could use some to replace the failing water mains that are surely challenged by global warming . This sure looks and quacks like a vote buying duck, spreading some government wealth through the right partisan channels. BTW the government does not have its own wealth. They are spending our money, or borrowing money in our name.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

So much for facts over ridicule.

Some ideas are pretty ridiculous.

"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results." Not sure who's being quoted here, but scientific consensus is based on reproducible results.

Science is based on reproducible results. Consensus has no such basis.

Yes it isn't infallible, and yes it often shifts over time with new information. That doesn't mean the lone voices in the wilderness are always the true sources of wisdom.

No one is saying lone voices are always true, Captain Strawman. But consensus is not science.

Most of us aren't giving flat-earthers a serious shake either.

Red herring. Irrelevant. Ridiculous association/overgeneralization.

I though it was odd that everyone was citing 10+ year old studies to debunk the 97% consensus figure. It turns out we're up to over 99% now. Reeeeeee!
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Consensus still isn't science. And from the abstract it isn't apparent that these authors avoided cherry picking either.

For fun I took a peek at the CO2 Coalition site. The first link on the site I clicked was their citation for a claim about beliefs about climate change amongst meteorologists. I was not shocked to find that they completely elided that per their own sources the rest of earth scientists are firmly with the consensus. I was also not shocked to find that the CO2 Coalition is funded by Koch, Mercer, etc. and touts appearances on Fox and Newsmax.

Who funds the climate alarmists? Or do they work for free? Which biased outlets continually publish and promote their work?

Follow the money indeed. I quit peeking after that. Life is short.

All human existence is short in geological timescales. Direct reliable measurements of climate variables is much more recent and until the past 40 years or so, also very sparse. We don't know much

p.s. I do wonder why people so worried about this continue to live in vulnerable places like FL and Martha's Vineyard.

 

[JohnRoberts]

All human existence is short in geological timescales. Direct reliable measurements of climate variables is much more recent and until the past 40 years or so, also very sparse. We don't know much

True, but understanding more about our planet's past has been studied by scientists forever. Some question whether the current temperature measurements are all that accurate but surely better than from past centuries. We can always use more constructive research studies.
===
50+ years ago my HS summer job was working in the machine shop that supported Columbia University's*** two oceanographic research ships. I was even hired to go out to sea as a member of the scientific crew for one tour in early 1970. My job on the boat would have been to maintain the crude satellite geolocation system. Sadly my draft board had different plans for me that involved Ft Dix NJ and ultimately Germany/NATO, not the South Pacific.

The oceanographic research back then was to collect core samples of sediment from the ocean floor. 50' Long steel pipes were bolted together and dropped beneath heavy weights to drive deep down into the ocean sea bed. Collected within the stratified levels of sediment is a rich history of our past. These ships also dropped water barrels with trap doors that collected samples of ocean water and small sea creatures from different depths. Of course there was no way to store all those water samples so they probably filtered the solids from the water to store whatever they caught for later study. The sediment cores were pretty dense and brought back intact to examine later on land.

I have heard about analysis of these old core samples being used to estimate things like atmospheric CO2, and even temperature dating way back in our planet's geologic record.

p.s. I do wonder why people so worried about this continue to live in vulnerable places like FL and Martha's Vineyard.

Because they are nice and they can... Cities in southern Florida are already adapting to rising sea levels. Adaptation is a much more prudent use of resources than subsidizing everyone to buy EVs.

JR

*** Columbia University wasn't the only institutional oceanographic research group. As I recall Woods Hole, was the other guys also researching the oceans. There was a friendly competition between the two groups.

 

[Matador]

It’s important to note that a scientific consensus is not proof for a scientific theory but that it’s the result of converging lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. It is therefore not a part of the scientific method but is actually a consequence of it. When people argue against a scientific consensus, they are usually misunderstanding the term or are deliberately abusing the ambiguity of the term consensus. A scientific consensus is not infallible but nonetheless represents the best knowledge available on a given scientific topic at a given time.
...
A “consensus” in everyday usage typically refers to a popular opinion which doesn’t need to be based on actual knowledge or evidence. By contrast, a “scientific consensus” needs to be based on evidence and converging lines of existing evidence are a prerequisite, distinguishing a knowledge-based scientific consensus from a simple agreement. To quote John Reisman, “Science is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. It is evidence that does the dictating.” Because of that, a few disagreeing contrarians on the fringe don’t really matter unless and until they can show evidence of comparable weight which explains the existing data and observations better. The weight of evidence is what matters.

 

[jabe]

Indeed a favored rhetorical trick of certain groups is to pretend certain scientific terms are being used in different, everyday contexts. "'Scientific consensus'? Why, that's little more than a popularity contest! 'Scientific theory'? Why a theory is nothing more than an idle conjecture from a would-be Sherlock Holmes!"

Does anybody notice or care that the government is spending Billions/Trillions on fighting climate change?

They notice and are glad it's happening. It turns that not so many people buy that the government is simulataneously helping poor people just to buy votes while hurting them to make them subservient in some undefinable way.

Could somebody phrase this dispute as a scientific thesis that can be proved or disproved?

Here's my thesis, the only one I've been directly positing here: most of those arguing against climate change are doing so in bad faith. First bit of evidence: the deliberate muddying of the term "scientific consensus" in this thread.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Indeed a favored rhetorical trick of certain groups is to pretend certain scientific terms are being used in different, everyday contexts. "'Scientific consensus'? Why, that's little more than a popularity contest! 'Scientific theory'? Why a theory is nothing more than an idle conjecture from a would-be Sherlock Holmes!"

?

They notice and are glad it's happening. It turns that not so many people buy that the government is simulataneously helping poor people just to buy votes while hurting them to make them subservient in some undefinable way.

Bureaucracy is only trying to help themselves buying votes. The college loan debt forgiveness is pretty transparently a quid pro quo.

Here's my thesis, the only one I've been directly positing here: most of those arguing against climate change are doing so in bad faith.

Nobody with any sense of objective reality disputes that climate change is occurring. Who are those people you speak of?

First bit of evidence: the deliberate muddying of the term "scientific consensus" in this thread.

Scientific consensus is the collective position scientists in a given field have taken, based on their interpretation of the available evidence.

The scientific consensus used to be that the earth was flat, and later that the sun rotated around the earth.

JR

 

[Matador]

The scientific consensus used to be that the earth was flat,

The Pythagoreans introduced the idea of a spherical Earth, but not based on scientific measurement. As worshippers of numbers and geometry, the Pythagoreans insisted that the Earth must take on the most perfect shape: the sphere. The idea of a flat or cylindrical earth persisted through the 5th century BCE, but the argument remained focused on questions of philosophy and theology, not on scientific observation. Plato surveys this range of views, and Garwood notes: “by the time [Plato’s] pupil Aristotle was writing, later in the fourth century BC, the globe concept seems to have become widely accepted among educated people.”
...
By the time of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, there was no educated dispute about the shape of the earth, though estimates of its size still varied. Columbus’ novelty didn’t rest in advancing a spherical earth, but in proposing a size for it that was far too small; this strategic misestimation was necessary to justify his belief that well-provisioned ships could reach the Indies by sailing west.
...
I think we can safely regard the flat-Earth cosmologies of the ancient Middle East as pre-scientific, and not reflecting a scientific consensus of the sort that [is proposed today]. The debates over the shape of the Earth that prevailed through the age of the Pythagoreans were also not primarily scientific. Indeed, it’d be about 2000 years before anything we’d recognize as science and true scientific discourse really became established in the West. Aristotle, Thales, and other Ancient Greeks set the stage for science and established some critical early results, but the notion of scientific consensus—a shared vision among a community of scholars united through a process of peer review and valuing evidence-driven, repeatable, testable hypotheses—would have to wait for a few millennia. In summary, then, there was probably never a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat, and that idea was first overturned not by science, but by a different philosophical system. Any lessons for modern climate science in that history 2500 years ago are hard to identify.

and later that the sun rotated around the earth.

All of this belief predates Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, therefore it was merely "consensus (of belief)" not "scientific consensus (of observation)".

It was not until the sixteenth century that a mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric, Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler introduced elliptical orbits, and Galileo Galilei presented supporting observations made using a telescope.

With the observations of William Herschel, Friedrich Bessel, and other astronomers, it was realized that the Sun, while near the barycenter of the Solar System, was not at any center of the universe.

So we had a consensus of belief, science was born, and then the "scientific consensus" emerged from observation.

Unless you think "scientific consensus" existed before even science did?

 

[ruffrecords]

JohnRoberts said:

Does anybody notice or care that the government is spending Billions/Trillions on fighting climate change?

They notice and are glad it's happening.

No they don't. In the UK hardly anyone is happy they are going to be forced to replace their gas boilers with expensive air source heat pumps, hardly anyone is happy they will have to replace their IC car with electric ones post 2030, and hardly anyone is happy they pay a whacking great subsidy on their energy bills to support wind mills. Hardly anyone is happy with the total lack of electric vehicle charging points. Basically a lot of people in the UK are pissed off at all the money the government is spending on this pointless exercise.

Cheers

Ian

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Indeed a favored rhetorical trick of certain groups is to pretend certain scientific terms are being used in different, everyday contexts. "'Scientific consensus'? Why, that's little more than a popularity contest!

It isn't science. That's all I'm saying. And the climate catastrophe consensus has a huge dollop of hubris on top. I paid to see "An Inconvenient Truth" when it first came out. I read "Earth in the Balance" in hardback. I was convinced at that time, but remained skeptical of the extreme predictions (being old enough to remember the coming ice age stuff from the 70s and 80s, among other boldly made predictions of doom).

Over time, as more information came to light and the predictions failed to occur I became a big skeptic. Watching the purveyors of these theories not walk their talk* convinced me that it is mostly another power grab/control move. History is full of similar examples (the Covid response is a more recent one).

'Scientific theory'? Why a theory is nothing more than an idle conjecture from a would-be Sherlock Holmes!"

A theory without hard proof (indirect measurements of ancient climate parameters, dodgy "models," and a series of failed predictions) is just that: an unproven theory. Newtonian physics is now known to be incomplete/inaccurate, yet it is good enough for 90%+ of real problems. Anthropomorphic climate change not so much.

They notice and are glad it's happening.

Not in my region.

It turns that not so many people buy that the government is simulataneously helping poor people just to buy votes while hurting them to make them subservient in some undefinable way.

Helping poor people just enough to get their vote, or simply convincing them that you will is nothing new. Maintaining and then expanding power is the game. Telling people what goods and services they can buy, sell, and provide is not "helping" people, especially when the alternatives are more expensive to buy and operate.

Here's my thesis, the only one I've been directly positing here: most of those arguing against climate change are doing so in bad faith.

Great. Convince yourself that the "others" are malignant. I think you are simply duped, not evil.

First bit of evidence: the deliberate muddying of the term "scientific consensus" in this thread.

Defining is not muddying. It is the climate catastrophists who tried to redefine scientific consensus to mean actual science.

*Most serious people who see a problem will act not just indirectly (by voting, for example), but directly to reduce their contribution to the problem. I've been vegetarian since 1991. I support reducing destruction of ancient forests with my money and time. I've owned forested land since 1999 and have managed it for long term health and carbon sequestration as well as for habitat and natural beauty. I see none of that behavior from Al Gore, John Kerry, Obama, or most other babbling bureaucrats and polemic politicians. And I've asked here what others have done to put their money and time where their claimed beliefs lie. Well?

 

[Tubetec]

Another point about electric vehicles is your local mechanic most likely wont be able to handle the service , so your stuck paying top wack to the dealership .

I heard another story recently , someone bought a 10 year old Toyota Avensis station wagon , cost around 1200 euros , runs beautifully , but it gives a fault code related to the electronically actuated hand brake . The handbrake still works perfectly but the fault code is an automatic fail on the NCT test .
Theres most likely some wear on the internals of the actuator which probably only requires a small spare part to fix ,but Toyota will only supply you a new actuator at a cost of 2000 euros , so in other words a perfeclty good vehicle will be taken off the road and crushed where a simple old fashioned cable opperated handbrake would have lived on or been easily repaired ,
technology is designed to take us to the cleaners.

I never had a car in my life , I also stopped using air travel more than 20 years ago .
Political leaders world wide have an attrocious carbon footprint , yet they continue to come out with policies that hurt the small guy disproportionately ,
Its a case of do as I say not as I do.

 

[jabe]

And I've asked here what others have done to put their money and time where their claimed beliefs lie. Well?

Ah. The infamous Mister Gotcha argument.

 

[jabe]

In the UK hardly anyone is happy they are going to be forced to replace their gas boilers with expensive air source heat pumps, hardly anyone is happy they will have to replace their IC car with electric ones post 2030, and hardly anyone is happy they pay a whacking great subsidy on their energy bills to support wind mills.

No doubt. "Happy" was a poor choice of words. I would certainly be happier if I thought climate change need not be addressed. But it does seem that they are concerned about in the UK. Three-quarters of adults in Great Britain worry about climate change - Office for National Statistics

Nobody with any sense of objective reality disputes that climate change is occurring. Who are those people you speak of?

My mistake, I meant to write "arguing against ACTION to slow climate change".

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Ah. The infamous Mister Gotcha argument.
View attachment 111876

Are those supposed to be funny or erudite? Do you walk your talk or just try to deflect when asked? If you aren't making any personal sacrifices (of your own volition, not after being forced by gov or "authority") that support your cause or beliefs it is perfectly rational to question your commitment to what you claim to support. Not hard to understand.