“climate emergency”

[Sea Ray]

In the never ending quest to add facts to political discussion I present this book on climate change written by a scientist from the Obama administration. It's called "Unsettled" as in the climate debate is far from settled science:

As Mr Koonin illustrates, tornado frequency and severity are also not trending up; nor are the number and severity of droughts. The extent of global fires has been trending significantly downward. The rate of sea-level rise has not accelerated. Global crop yields are rising, not falling. And while global atmospheric CO2 levels are obviously higher now than two centuries ago, they’re not at any record planetary high—they’re at a low that has only been seen once before in the past 500 million years.

How many of you were blaming Trump for the hurricanes?

Mr. Koonin laments the sloppiness of those using local weather “events” to make claims about long-cycle planetary phenomena. He chastises not so much local news media as journalists with prestigious national media who should know better. This attribution error evokes one of Mr. Koonin’s rare rebukes: “Pointing to hurricanes as an example of the ravages of human-caused climate change is at best unconvincing, and at worst plainly dishonest.”

This author is not a right wing extremist:

He has been a professor of physics at Caltech and served as the top scientist in Barack Obama’s Energy Department. The book is copiously referenced and relies on widely accepted government documents.

He claims that winter temps have warmed but summer temps have not.

‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate

I welcome this book because we need more facts and less politics in the climate debate

 

[LouderVol]

In the never ending quest to add facts to political discussion I present this book on climate change written by a scientist from the Obama administration. It's called "Unsettled" as in the climate debate is far from settled science:



How many of you were blaming Trump for the hurricanes?



This author is not a right wing extremist:



He claims that winter temps have warmed but summer temps have not.

‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate

I welcome this book because we need more facts and less politics in the climate debate

Completely anecdotal but the last few years have actually had a real spring here in Atlanta. It's been nice.

First couple years it was either high of below 50 or a high of above 90, with maybe a week of transition.

Now we are getting more than a month of that same temperature transition, and its wonderful.

Just one observation.

 

[Sea Ray]

So anyone think this author will get an interview on one of the big three networks or even the Weather Channel? The dishonesty of our media is on display again and it's really disheartening

 

[McDad]

So anyone think this author will get an interview on one of the big three networks or even the Weather Channel? The dishonesty of our media is on display again and it's really disheartening

Not intended as a "gotcha" because no one reads through pages of a thread before they post. Bham brought this book to the thread in April.

Will be interesting to see how the Party of Science™ handles one of their own documenting how climate science has been turned into propaganda.

Opinion | How a Physicist Became a Climate Truth Teller

the book will be out in a couple weeks

I reference it for you because the discussion created by his post went...well, it went about as expected. The physicist will NOT be heralded or interviewed. He will be shunned, shamed, ignored, mocked, and derided; because religious zealouts do not tolerate anyone questioning their faith. It's not that they desire to offer a rebuttal to contradictory information. It's that they don't want the contradictory information to be revealed. "The debate is settled" to use a phrase as evidence of my reasoning.

 

[Rishvol]

Not intended as a "gotcha" because no one reads through pages of a thread before they post. Bham brought this book to the thread in April.


I reference it for you because the discussion created by his post went...well, it went about as expected. The physicist will NOT be heralded or interviewed. He will be shunned, shamed, ignored, mocked, and derided; because religious zealouts do not tolerate anyone questioning their faith. It's not that they desire to offer a rebuttal to contradictory information. It's that they don't want the contradictory information to be revealed. "The debate is settled" to use a phrase as evidence of my reasoning.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fake-news-misinformation-covid-vaccines-conspiracy This article is exactly what you're saying. Only one side is correct and the other is full of dung. This same magazine has an article similar to this one but about climate change. They haven't made it digital yet.

 

[Sea Ray]

Not intended as a "gotcha" because no one reads through pages of a thread before they post. Bham brought this book to the thread in April.


I reference it for you because the discussion created by his post went...well, it went about as expected. The physicist will NOT be heralded or interviewed. He will be shunned, shamed, ignored, mocked, and derided; because religious zealouts do not tolerate anyone questioning their faith. It's not that they desire to offer a rebuttal to contradictory information. It's that they don't want the contradictory information to be revealed. "The debate is settled" to use a phrase as evidence of my reasoning.

No worry about the gotcha. I'm glad VN is on top of this.

I'm a fact based guy rather than ideologically driven. I welcome books like this. It reflects my experience that Winter's are far less harsh but summers aren't much different. I only brought it up 'cause I heard the author interviewed on a local radio station here in Cincinnati this morning

 

[Sea Ray]

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fake-news-misinformation-covid-vaccines-conspiracy This article is exactly what you're saying. Only one side is correct and the other is full of dung. This same magazine has an article similar to this one but about climate change. They haven't made it digital yet.

That article is definitely political and not scientific. It only shows right wing sites as being dishonest and lists left wing outlets like CNN and NY Times as being very honest. I think it's best to verify information with another source but even Biden got caught believing bad sources with the Ga voting law bill and that earned him 4 Pinocchios. The problem is the MSM won't correct left wing errors

 

[Rishvol]

That article is definitely political and not scientific. It only shows right wing sites as being dishonest and lists left wing outlets like CNN and NY Times as being very honest. I think it's best to verify information with another source but even Biden got caught believing bad sources with the Ga voting law bill and that earned him 4 Pinocchios. The problem is the MSM won't correct left wing errors

Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to find a scientific article or magazine that is not left-leaning think-how-I-think publications. If you want any information that the articles are talking about you need to look at the original data to see what is being talked about.

 

[McDad]

Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to find a scientific article or magazine that is not left-leaning think-how-I-think publications. If you want any information that the articles are talking about you need to look at the original data to see what is being talked about.

Thanks for the other link in your reply. As I read, I asked myself why does "science" need advice on how to communicate to the public. It doesn't. If the science is absolute and irrefutable, then it will simply be even if people refuse to believe it. There are people who profess the earth is flat. Does it matter what they profess? It doesn't. I can deny gravity all I want. But if i choose to test my denial from a dangerous height, I'm going to suffer the consequences.

What stood out to me in the article you linked is how the problem of communicating science to lay people is a problem created by pushing things to the public prematurely. So many things taught to us in school, or our parents, or our kids never came to be. The article offers tips on how to prebunk science in the media. Surely the article's author must accept that sensationalizing "science" for 40 or 50 years has created people who doubt everything now. Once the boy cried wolf too many times, the townsfolk no longer showed up to defend the flock.

 

[05_never_again]

Thanks for the other link in your reply. As I read, I asked myself why does "science" need advice on how to communicate to the public. It doesn't. If the science is absolute and irrefutable, then it will simply be even if people refuse to believe it. There are people who profess the earth is flat. Does it matter what they profess? It doesn't. I can deny gravity all I want. But if i choose to test my denial from a dangerous height, I'm going to suffer the consequences.

What stood out to me in the article you linked is how the problem of communicating science to lay people is a problem created by pushing things to the public prematurely. So many things taught to us in school, or our parents, or our kids never came to be. The article offers tips on how to prebunk science in the media. Surely the article's author must accept that sensationalizing "science" for 40 or 50 years has created people who doubt everything now. Once the boy cried wolf too many times, the townsfolk no longer showed up to defend the flock.

Much of the contemporary debate surrounding climate change stems from the conflation of "climate change denial" with "you disagree with my proposed solutions to climate change."

 

[McDad]

Much of the contemporary debate surrounding climate change stems from the conflation of "climate change denial" with "you disagree with my proposed solutions to climate change."

I agree. Also, add to the debate what's the cause of the change.

I think we conflate climate change activism with being a good steward of our planet and/or general pollution remediation. Thoughts?

 

[05_never_again]

I agree. Also, add to the debate what's the cause of the change.

I think we conflate climate change activism with being a good steward of our planet and/or general pollution remediation. Thoughts?

Could be. Being a good steward of the planet and general pollution remediation are different (more general topics) than climate change activism. It probably isn't common, but I suppose you could be a big climate change activist and still throw garbage out the window of your car, for example. Electric cars, even if they are charged via a 100% clean and renewable source, run on batteries with rare earth metals, the mining of which is very environmentally unfriendly. A lot of climate change activism is feel-good, surface-level virtue signal stuff to make people feel good about themselves and broadcast how good of a person they are.

My basic position on climate change from the beginning is that it is happening, and humans are causing some/all of it. But are the consequences as dire as doomers push? And the single biggest problem with "climate activists" that I have is that if you disagree with their political solutions to the problem, you get called a "climate change denier" or "science denier." That is ad hominem nonsense and of course not what you are doing at all, but it is for some reason perceived as a legitimate counter-argument.

It's awfully convenient; there is this problem in the world, its consequences are absolutely dire, the solution to it is the adoption of every progressive pet project they've come up with for the last 40 years, and if you disagree with their solution you might as well be denying gravity.

 

[McDad]

Could be. Being a good steward of the planet and general pollution remediation are different (more general topics) than climate change activism. It probably isn't common, but I suppose you could be a big climate change activist and still throw garbage out the window of your car, for example. Electric cars, even if they are charged via a 100% clean and renewable source, run on batteries with rare earth metals, the mining of which is very environmentally unfriendly. A lot of climate change activism is feel-good, surface-level virtue signal stuff to make people feel good about themselves and broadcast how good of a person they are.

My basic position on climate change from the beginning is that it is happening, and humans are causing some/all of it. But are the consequences as dire as doomers push? And the single biggest problem with "climate activists" that I have is that if you disagree with their political solutions to the problem, you get called a "climate change denier" or "science denier." That is ad hominem nonsense and of course not what you are doing at all, but it is for some reason perceived as a legitimate counter-argument.

It's awfully convenient; there is this problem in the world, its consequences are absolutely dire, the solution to it is the adoption of every progressive pet project they've come up with for the last 40 years, and if you disagree with their solution you might as well be denying gravity.

Very poor sentence structure by me created a misunderstanding. I'll try to clarify. I think there is a conflation of being a good steward of the planet and general pollution remediation with climate change activism. For instance, I hold a different position than you regarding the cause of climate change. Some people take my position to mean I favor dirty water, toxic air, have no desire to recycle, etc. Simply isn't true (for me anyway). I still try to follow the standard we learned in boy scouts of "leave the site better than you found it". I do what I can do to reduce my usage of plastics and to recycle. I also believe we have made great strides as a society in our overall cleanliness for the environment.

 

[05_never_again]

Very poor sentence structure by me created a misunderstanding. I'll try to clarify. I think there is a conflation of being a good steward of the planet and general pollution remediation with climate change activism. For instance, I hold a different position than you regarding the cause of climate change. Some people take my position to mean I favor dirty water, toxic air, have no desire to recycle, etc. Simply isn't true (for me anyway). I still try to follow the standard we learned in boy scouts of "leave the site better than you found it". I do what I can do to reduce my usage of plastics and to recycle. I also believe we have made great strides as a society in our overall cleanliness for the environment.

Yes, I definitely agree with that. There is totally a conflation of "I'm skeptical of climate change" with "I don't care if toxic chemicals are poured into the water." It's another strawman/ad hominem thing they throw out there.

 

[Rishvol]

Thanks for the other link in your reply. As I read, I asked myself why does "science" need advice on how to communicate to the public. It doesn't. If the science is absolute and irrefutable, then it will simply be even if people refuse to believe it. There are people who profess the earth is flat. Does it matter what they profess? It doesn't. I can deny gravity all I want. But if i choose to test my denial from a dangerous height, I'm going to suffer the consequences.

What stood out to me in the article you linked is how the problem of communicating science to lay people is a problem created by pushing things to the public prematurely. So many things taught to us in school, or our parents, or our kids never came to be. The article offers tips on how to prebunk science in the media. Surely the article's author must accept that sensationalizing "science" for 40 or 50 years has created people who doubt everything now. Once the boy cried wolf too many times, the townsfolk no longer showed up to defend the flock.

The people who are writing these articles don't look at it from the other side. Which is hilarious considering one of the links in the article goes to a game about walking in the other sides shoes. They take everything at face value and do not dig any deeper. Science News is a magazine that is written for students to read for scientific articles. This magazine is used daily in science classrooms around the US and is a huge reason why it's difficult to have opposing views in science in an education setting.

 

[Electric Orange]

 

[Electric Orange]

Is A "Climate Lockdown" On The Horizon?

 

[AshG]

Is A "Climate Lockdown" On The Horizon?

No

Most of the neighborhood dogs started howling when I opened that link; that piece is wall to wall dog whistles.

 

[LouderVol]

No

Most of the neighborhood dogs started howling when I opened that link; that piece is wall to wall dog whistles.

I am inclined to agree, but I am wondering your reasoning?