Sunday, January 1, 2017

#3 E.M. has his say. Debating the Republican Disconnect from Earth's realities.


E.M. has accepted my invitation and here is his guest post taking issue with my commentary.  As agreed I have only added formatting for clarity and tried correcting for the list numbers error that I don't have time to figure out.  I'm hoping E.M. leaves a comment acknowledging that I've left his words untouched.  I will be responding in a following post or two.  Hopefully I'll have the first one finished and posted by this evening.
___________________________________________________________

E.M. writes:  I’m going to start this post by pointing out that you are taking the substance of my thoughts completely incorrectly. I put this on myself, as my thoughts were quickly written in a comment section and not articulated nearly as clearly as they could have been. My original statement came out poorly, and the questions I posed were intended not to critique the science of AGW, but to point out the limitations that arise from scientific modeling, easily the hardest task any research team is faced with.

I would like to articulate now the ONLY point I was trying to make at any point of this discussion: AGW is real. That is clear. That is obvious. I am making no sort of denial of this fact nor am I being “disingenuous” by stating that we don’t fully understand the way the climate system operates over a long period of time. 

I’m sure you’ll give me the “bull shit!” response, but this is not at all a bullshit statement. Climate science (in the scope of science) is relatively new and we certainly can and will improve our holistic knowledge in the subject in the coming months, years, and decades. No real climate scientist, or anyone with knowledge of the scientific process for that matter, denies that increasing our knowledge of our planet is necessary. I get my information from the same research you do; you could draw the same conclusions I do from the research, because the scientists who do the research acknowledge just as much. Models speculate, and this creates uncertainty in any findings, no matter what kind of modeling you are doing. Here’s a dandy link to the benefits and drawbacks of scientific modeling, because clearly you believe that I’m denying the existence (I’m not) of AGW. 

I will now try, to the best of my ability, to respond to your specific critiques, many of which are judgments based on, wait for it, assumptions that you have made about my background, my knowledge, and my character. 
  1. 1)  CC wrote:  “Dude , I don’t believe you are the innocent you pretend to be.  If you were that naive you wouldn’t be commenting on AWG over here!  That doesn’t mean we can’t continue a constructive dialogue, I just want you to know where we stand.”  
    1. E.M. writes:  What isn’t “innocent” about questioning models? Climate scientists question modeling all of the time; this is how we refine modeling. It is a crude process where adjustments (see #20) are made over and over. I am not naïve; I am cautious with speculation. 
  1. 2)  CC wrote:  “You have provided me another excellent vehicle to examine the subtle dishonest rhetorical game that the Republican PR machine broadcasts through thousands of astro-turfed mouthpieces.  It brings me back to what this blog was all about before the 11/8/16 catastrophe and I thank you for that opportunity.”
    1. E.M. writes:  Not sure exactly what the “Republican PR machine” has to do with climate-system modeling. And no, I don’t agree with the shit that is spewed from the mouths of people whole claim that AGW doesn’t exist, because I’m not fucking stupid. Me not wanting to cripple the national economy has absolutely zero to do with not believing in AGW or the “Republican PR machine”. It has to do with a basic understanding of economics and government’s role in society. 
  1. 3  CC wrote:  “Nonsense!  The right wing media machine is saturated with people denying the fundamentals of AGW.  Just need to google it, or try YouTube for hundreds of real zingers.  {This deception is the first “tell” that we are dealing with a disingenuous individual.}
    1. E.M. writes:  Disingenuous? Okay, but even still, MOST (not all) rational individuals, whether they believe that we should dramatically reduce emissions or not at all, believe that the Earth is warming and that this warming can be contributed to human carbon emissions. Yeah, some people tell themselves that AGW doesn’t exist, and they often have loud mouths. This doesn’t mean, however, that everyone (Republicans, Libertarians, the fucking Whig party; it doesn’t really matter what label you attach), who doesn’t believe that government market intervention is the way to solve the issue is a liar, a schemer, or a societal-parasite. It means they have a different opinion on how to deal with the issue. Or maybe they don’t want to address the issue, but that doesn’t make supply-side social and economic theorists “climate-deniers”. 
  1. 4)  CC wrote:  You say you don't want to argue about the existence of the human-contribution to climate change and then proceed to do just that in a wishy-washy way.  What gives?”
    1. E.M. writes:  Because it does exist. As I’ve said many times at this point. The wishy-washiness of my post can be attributed to a lack of articulation, not deception.
  1. 5)  CC wrote:  “Why do you think the scientific community has been self-serving?  Please offer some examples.”
    1. E.M. writes:  I never said the scientific community is self-serving or disingenuous. However, if you think that all climate lobbyists are doing what they do only in order to “save the planet”, you are being extremely naïve in your world view. When there is money to be made, as with any issue, it becomes highly publicized. This is my biggest critique of the the entire AGW debate (debate in regards to response, NOT existence). It’s truly a travesty that our two-party system turned this issue into a political one instead of a humanitarian one. Climate sciences would benefit greatly if AGW was viewed outside of the political spectrum. And here we agree: republicans/conservative and all of these AGW deniers have played a huge role in the polarization of the issue. But, so has the other-side. Both sides have chosen their “response” to AGW inside a political vacuum, with no room for negation or concessions on either-side. This isn’t only problematic for science, it’s also problematic for creating any real change. If we have a progressive agenda that has no regard for the concerns (economic, not causal) of the other side like we have seen from the current administration, there should be no surprise that the agenda of the incoming administration aims to undo what they see as a slight from the other side. 
  1. 6)  CC wrote:  “I’m curious have you listened to any climate scientist lectures, such as UCTV Perspectives on Ocean Sciences?” 
    1. E.M. writes:  again, not denying any of this.
  1. 7)  CC wrote:  On one side we have scientists who have dedicated themselves to understanding how our planet operates and doing so as accurately as possible.  They are reporting on what their instruments and evidence is telling them.”
    1. E.M. writes:  Still not denying science…
  1. 8)  CC wrote:  “On the other side we have a small group of right-wing politically motivated outlier scientists, supported by a “think tanks” network which was created by some very wealthy, and oil drenched special interests and their bought Republican (and libertarian) politicians.”
    1. E.M. writes:  Political polarization at its finest. I don’t think this minority of “outlier scientists” supported by free market think tanks should come as any surprise to anyone. An entire industry is being threatened and so is a lot of wealth. The reality of situation is that the livelihood of many, many Americans (approximately 170,000) is threatened by regulations on the oil and gas industry alone. So, yes, there are special interest groups that exist to protect their, wait for it, interests. These groups know that there will be no concessions from the market intervention thinkers, so in a time where the federal government has largely consisted of these thinkers (and executive orders, no less). They’ve resorted to denial in order to fight legislation, which in and of itself is tragic.
  1. 9)  CC wrote:  “Sad thing is I don’t believe you rely on real experts.  I believe from the way you’re framing your argument, that you get all your news from within the Republican news feed and a narrow circle of outlier scientists who have made themselves irrelevant to the real science going on.”
    1. E.M. writes:  Again, broad assumptions about my world knowledge. I will start with the (individual) news research process, especially in our current news environment. I usually start with daily headlines from places like politico and realclear. I do like realclear, even with their slight-right slant, as they usually publish pretty detailed news stories from both major media outlets with varying political opinions (usually MSM media such as NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, etc.). They also publish content from sources like The Atlantic and The Economist, which I feel offer much more substance than MSM outlets (especially their opinion pieces). In addition, they offer publications from academic and other journals that are vastly more detail and fact oriented than anything that can be found at the major outlets. I pride myself on knowing what both sides are saying about issues. I like to be able to point out the hypocrisies of both sides of our system, and you can’t construct your own world-view if you only understand one side of the thought process. 
  1. 10)  CC wrote:  “Sentences like that are so fundamentally dishonest its ridiculous but such are the tactics that have squandered precious time we don’t have to waste. {Another “tell” that we are dealing with a disingenuous individual.}
    1. E.M. writes:  Woah, it’s dishonest to say we don’t know all we can? I’m nor squandering precious time or justifying inaction in anyway. Simply an observation (and a fact).
  1. 11)  CC wrote:  Dude, name one serious scientist who says we know all we can about manmade global warming and the climate changes it drives, or the full extent of long-term effects?  We do know an awful lot.  What we don’t know is about fringe details that are of no-count to the fundamental reality of what we are doing to our Earth and today’s life supporting biosphere. Oh and we certainly do know what our role in its prevention would need to be.  Drastically reducing the amount of Greenhouse Gases we inject into our atmosphere.  It really is that simple!”
    1. E.M. writes:  Zero. There are none, so again, calling me disingenuous for literally referencing this fact is a weak argument at best, and highly ignorant at worst. I ask you this: how? How do we, as the United States of America, drastically reduce global greenhouse gas emissions? What is your plan of action? Please, I would love to hear an explanation of how you would shape our energy policy in a way that would drastically reduce emissions.
  1. 12)  CC wrote:  “Either you didn’t have the curious to go and read Issac Asimov’s essay, or it went right over your head.  Try it again.  Hint, the essay is about the refinement of fact based understanding.”
    1. E.M. writes:  I did read it, and you assuming it went “right over my head” shows your arrogance. I understand exactly what he’s saying, that the science is not wrong, it is incomplete. This is literally my entire point, so thanks for helping me make it. Get over yourself and your reading comprehension; you aren’t my intellectual superior. 
  1. 13)  CC wrote:  “Well I’m sorry but I have the evidence of repeated and gross lying about the scientific facts, not to mention the malicious misrepresentation that’s been committed by Republican “think tanks” and PR fronts.
    1. E.M. writes:  See #8
  1. 14)  CC wrote:  If you look at this blog you’ll see plenty of very specific critiques, were I offer objective supporting evidence for my claims.  I know what I’m talking about and ignoring my critiques doesn’t make their substance go away.
    1. E.M. writes:  I have neither the time nor the desire to read all of your blog posts, as this site is not easy to navigate and I have other things to do than read through all of your (all pretty much the same) posts. I don’t argue with the evidence you present; because I’m not arguing AGW’s existence or the fact that rising global temperature is a net-negative for the planet. I will give it to you, you seem relatively well versed in the realm of climate science. Kudos to you, but don’t misrepresent my concerns over necessary action-steps as an attempt on my part to run away from objective realities.
  1. 15)  CC wrote:  Oh and no immediate about it!  I’ve been studying Anthropogenic Global Warming and the public dialogue since the early 1970s.  I’ve been trying to have a serious debate with a AGW contrarian since the 90s and Roger Cohen’s dishonest lectures at our local college.  What I get instead is big up front claims.  When I respond and watch my responses sidestepped with a descent into silliness that totally avoids the points I’ve presented, then with parting insults they disappear back into their self-certain echo-chamber. That’s by way of explaining why I’m not coddling and all nicie-nicie anymore.  Sorry if it hurts your feelings.”
    1. E.M. writes:  Don’t worry about hurting my feelings, I’m not as easily triggered as many in our society are nowadays. I love having conversations like this one, as you are challenging me to present my thoughts in a coherent manner and to defend my beliefs. I hope you feel the same way through this and don’t see it as a personal attack on you. This is the discussion that should be happening more, but isn’t. 
  1. 16)  CC wrote:  “Bull shit, have you even read through any of my critiques?  Why not start with Mr. Landscapes and Cycles, the infamous lying Jim Steele and my documented dismantling of his nonsense.  You’ll find the specifics upon which I base my “generalizations.” Why avoidance?  I’ve issued a bold invitation for a rational substance based constructive debate regarding climate science and the way the Republicans have maliciously misrepresented and lied about the facts. We don’t need to like each other to have a constructive honest debate.”
    1. E.M. writes:  Read through a couple, again, well thought out and I have no objection to your disdain for the spread of false information. I never said I don’t like you; I don’t base who I like and don’t like on someone’s personal political beliefs. That is no way to go through life or to achieve anything that can be considered productive in society. 
  1. 17)  CC wrote:  “I’ve never claimed to be an expert, but I have been paying attention since the early 70s.  I’m a spectator, an enthusiast, which is why I add so many links back to original sources, so folks can learn for themselves. Dude, It’s not about “dismissing the opposition” it’s about exposing base deception and malicious lies.”
    1. E.M. writes:  But, you are dismissing my views. However, I chalk that up to my own comments short-comings in its articulation rather than your method of debate.
  1. 18)  CC wrote:  “You are confusing yourself, the mainstream media is not the “climate community!” Do you understand the difference between scientific projections issued within the scientific literature - and news reporters stories about that science?? That is important.  Don’t you think? Dude, I ask because I’d like to invite you to share these “failed predictions” of yours - but I would expect you to stick with actual scientific papers. Then we can look at those “failed predictions” and see what the failures are and what we can learn from them.  How about it?  You made the claims.  Can you support them with objective evidence? Well heck on second thought, never mind, lets see your sources - provide whatever climate predictions you’d like.   We can take it from there.”
    1. E.M. writes:  Okay, you’ve got me on this one. I did in fact confuse myself between climate science in the media vs the climate science community. I was mainly referencing outlandish claims from Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth”. I.e. Kilimanjaro won’t have year-round snow at decade end; no arctic left by 2013; etc. Even you must see the obvious scare tactics Gore uses, and in my opinion Al Gore is one of the main reasons that anyone doubts AGW at all. He was one of the first to politicize it. However, I don’t necessarily fault Gore’s hyperbole, because hyperbole is inherently an effective method to rally the masses around a cause. 
  1. 19)  CC wrote:  “Why is that a problem for you? Don’t you think it is important for people to learn as much as we can about our Earth, its biosphere and climate system? Satellites and Earth sciences are expensive, no?  Why do you think that money should not be getting spent?  Please explain how that rationale works.  Where would you divert that money to?” 
    1. E.M. writes:  It’s not the funding I dislike, it’s the bureaucratic nature of the funding process and the lack of accountability that follows this funding. I would simply like to see a tightening in program oversight with measurable goals and a desire to actually create solutions; not an endless tap of funding that produces minimal results. We focus to much on pushing legislation and too little on improving the current ways that we use energy. Let’s clean up the power-grid with some that funding. How about in addition to funding research and implementation alternative fuel sources, we also give some funding to these evil coal, oil and gas companies to research ways of cleaning up their own emissions? I’m saying that our impact on our climate is a huge, global issue that won’t be fixed by simply implementing federal legislation, and instead will require us to address AGW on a global scale, starting primarily in private markets and on local government policy. It’s easy to throw money at a problem; the hard part about coming up with solutions is identifying areas where change are likely to occur, setting goals to bring about the change, and constantly working with all interest groups in a manner that respects their beliefs (where you believe they are just plain wrong or not) and identifies concerns. As nice as it would be if everyone was on-board to, as you put, drastically decrease emissions, this is not the reality of the world we live in. The AGW problem is just that, a problem, but we will get no where if concessions can’t be made by either side of the date. Rather, we will get policy that crowds out the other-side of the debate (Trump will undo Obama, the next democratic will undo what Trump does, so on and so forth for generations). 
  1. 20)  CC wrote:  Right, and adjustments are made to economic data people rely on everyday too. Don’t you appreciate that science is about striving for ever more accurate data, using ever more sophisticated instruments and processing methods?  Checking and cross checking always knowing that mistakes are possible and need to get ferreted out.  What’s wrong with that? 
    1. E.M. writes:  Touché on this one. Goes back to modeling, and you are correct to call me out on this. As a student of economics, you a wholly correct; economic models make adjustments and assumptions all the time, which is why economic models are consistently inaccurate, and sometimes blatantly incorrect. Again, not saying the models are incorrect for AGW, but modeling certainly has limitations. 
  1. 21)  A)   CC wrote:  You’ve admitted that you know nothing about climate science, yet you feel in a position to label legislative efforts misguided. How’s that work? That reminds me, what are your favorite news sources?
    a.    I have admitted no such thing. I said that I am not a climate scientist. Which is true. I do, however, consider myself to be a student of science; whether that be climate science, social science, or political science. I like to read about things, research current events, and learn about world history (these are great ways to procrastinate studying the boring stuff!). I enjoy pondering about how things have happened in the past, how they are happening now, and how they may happen in the future. I learn for the sake of learning, and I’m not trying to forward any type of agenda into the climate-change argument other than my own personal insights on what I’ve seen, how its worked, and where we may be on the topic in the future. And the truth is, I have no idea which direction the world is going in and the scale of the damage that we will cause. Because no matter the amount of lobbying that is done, no matter how much legislation we push through, nothing will stop the industrialization that is occurring and its incurring drastic rise in emissions rates that we are experiencing in the developing world (I include China and India as developing countries, on the grounds of standards of living and mode income brackets). The Paris Agreement (which I support FYI) looks good on paper, but it is just that. A piece of paper. A hope. I wish there was a consensus, not about the existence of AGW, but on the actions to be taken to limit our environmental impact. Not actions as broad as “dramatically reduce carbon emissions”. If this were an easy goal to reach, there would be no opposition. I believe denial stems from pessimism regarding what we can really do, and it grows into such a strong preference for the gains to be made now (both on the political and corporate fronts) over the costs down the road, that their arguments inherently become denials of AGW. Because saying it’s not real is easier (and more politically effective) than the fear that rises from saying, “I don’t know what’s going to happen, or how we can effectively deal with it. If you view the arguments of “deniers” through this lens: the lens of the same fear that the other side feels about the possibly horrible consequences, however with much more doubt about our ability to stop it, it really isn’t so outlandish to see how these views manifest as “the great climate hoax”. And you can see how, because of this, talking about the issue of where we are headed must be done without the lens of AGW proponents and deniers, and with a lens of mutual respect and consideration. This isn’t to save anyone’s feelings; on the contrary, it is to understand the others’ thought process. Not only domestically, but internationally as well. We are, after all, a planet. One country’s actions alone will do nothing; one bloc of nations’ actions will do nothing. This battle will be won not through forced legislation and unchecked funding, but through achievable goals and mutual respect for both our planet, and our opposition. I don’t really care where you stand, as a proponent or denier, an interventionist or a deregulationist; who doesn’t want to pollute less? Who doesn’t want to make energy cleaner (traditional energy can be made cleaner; it just takes some of this nifty science stuff!)?

  2. 22) A)  CC wrote:  You’ve admitted that you know nothing about climate science, yet you feel in a position to label legislative efforts misguided. How’s that work? That reminds me, what are your favorite news sources?
    1. E.M. writes:  I have admitted no such thing. I said that I am not a climate scientist. Which is true. I do, however, consider myself to be a student of science; whether that be climate science, social science, or political science. I like to read about things, research current events, and learn about world history (these are great ways to procrastinate studying the boring stuff!). I enjoy pondering about how things have happened in the past, how they are happening now, and how they may happen in the future. I learn for the sake of learning, and I’m not trying to forward any type of agenda into the climate-change argument other than my own personal insights on what I’ve seen, how its worked, and where we may be on the topic in the future. And the truth is, I have no idea which direction the world is going in and the scale of the damage that we will cause. Because no matter the amount of lobbying is done, no matter how much legislation we push through, will stop the industrialization and drastically rising emissions rates that we are experiencing in the developing world (I include China and India as developing countries, on the grounds of standards of living and mode income brackets). The Paris Agreement (which I support FYI) looks good on paper, but it is just that. A piece of paper. A hope. I wish there was a consensus, not about the existence of AGW, but on the actions to be taken to limit our environmental impact. Not actions as broad as “dramatically reduce carbon emissions”. If this were an easy goal to reach, there would be no opposition. I believe denial stems from pessimism regarding what we can really do, and it grows into such a strong preference for the gains to be made now (both on the political and corporate fronts) over the costs down the road, that their arguments inherently become denials of AGW. Because saying it’s not real is easier (and more politically effective) than the fear that rises from saying, “I don’t know what’s going to happen, or how we can effectively deal with it. If you view the arguments of “deniers” through this lens: the lens of the same fear that the other side feels about the possible, however with much more doubt about our ability to stop it, it really isn’t so outlandish to see how these views manifest as “the great climate hoax”. And you can see how, because of this, talking about the issue of where we are headed must be done without the lens of AGW proponents and deniers, and with a lens of mutual respect and consideration. This isn’t to save anyone’s feelings; on the contrary, it is to understand the others’ thought process. Not only domestically, but internationally as well. We are, after all, a planet. One country’s actions alone will do nothing; one bloc of nations’ actions will do nothing. This battle will be won not through forced legislation, unchecked funding, achievable goals, and mutual respect for both our planet and our opposition. I don’t really care where you stand, as a proponent or denier, who doesn’t want to pollute less? Who doesn’t want to make energy cleaner (traditional energy can be made cleaner; it just takes some of this nifty science stuff!)? 
  1. CC wrote:  “Absolutely nothing”. Really, how do you figure that? What do you know about it?
    1. E.M. writes:  I’m just going to assume you get what I’m trying to say at this point.
  1. CC wrote:  Finally you seem to believe that ignoring the science is okay if it’s inconvenience or challenging for what you believe
    1. E.M. writes:  Last thought on science; it is time for us to get over the science – AGW is real, and I truly believe that most people believe this, whether it is evident or not. However, we cannot get over the climate science, the economic science, the political science or the psychological science that contributes to this key issue. 

13 comments:

citizenschallenge said...

Incidentally I know E.M. will be out until tomorrow Monday, so don't expect any acknowledgement before that.

CC

Anonymous said...

EM here - confirming the accuracy of my comments!

citizenschallenge said...

Thanks !

Griff said...

Hi
Just a few thoughts
The left right divide is strange for me because I am a free market liberal politically so find the usa divide between liberal and conservative a strange concept.
rational wiki has a good comment on this deference between the usa and other western country's in this regard
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
EM The issue as I see it for you to come to terms with AGW it not going to fix itself.
We can not go ahead and burn all fossil fuel reserves to the that would result in a planet unable to support our civilization in its present form. In fact it will probably result in a event similar to the Permian–Triassic extinction .

The tragedy of the commons.
No one owns the atmosphere yet we use it for a waste dumb for our combustion by products. This can not continue to happen unchecked. "We the people" The government must take ownership of the commons on behalf of every individual.

From a free market perspective the government picking winners by directly legislating outcomes is not the most efficient method to get were we need to go .
The most palatable method would be to place a cost on emissions and allow the market to decide the most efficient trade of between energy supply and atmospheric altering emissions.

A carbon tax or a ETS.

This was the position taken by the usa right before the discussion was usurped by the element who just deny reality. AGW will not go away with wishful thinking or outright denial. It is up to the right wing in your country to address this from a realistic standpoint or the eventual result will be a process that does not take into account your politics.

The USA must also do something about the reasons why your right wing has been brought off and denies scientific reality. Having hidden money buy your political process and pervert it is not a conductive to the long term future of your country. You need to clean the swamp to use trumps idiom .
Not in the way he is going about it. Having the very swamp dwellers who are responsible for your perverted political system being in control is not going to make your country great .

PG Antioch said...

#1

I saw your links on HotWhopper & felt the need to answer EM. Before I knew it, I'd written an overlong post - sorry! I'll break it up into segments.

EM is profoundly, desperately wrong in case after case after case. He is in the service of the psychotic, sociopathic, idiotic, venal, duplicitous, dangerous, evil, murderous, fascist denialists. (Sorry about the name-calling! See below.)

He has an obsession with models (as do many denialists), which are much less important than the major factors: the laws of physics, the facts of the paleoclimate & the current condition of the Earth. He just gives lip service to the fact of ACC.

EM: "...a basic understanding of economics and government’s role in society."

PGA: Yes, an understanding of economics is essential to enacting public policy. But one's ideology about government's role in society is PROFOUNDLY IRRELEVANT to climate science. It's just the catchphrase of right wingers who hallucinate that scientists are "leftists" whose motivation is to impose a larger government on society. Nope.

This is an incredibly destructive idea. Ideology has NOTHING to do with climate science. It has ONLY to do with the remedies for it.

EM: "...who doesn’t believe that government market intervention is the way to solve the issue..."

PGA: More utter cluelessness from a dedicated denier. It's very important to realize that the lack of a stiff carbon tax (or other price/fee) is a PROFOUND distortion of the free market. Everyone who opposes a carbon tax (or other fee, etc) is anti-free market.

Believing that it's "free" & "harmless" to emit carbon into the atmosphere without restraint are profoundly psychotic delusions. It will be unfathomably (to deniers) expensive & destructive in the future. Until reality (the costs of "externalities") is included in the price of fossil fuels, we'll never have a free market for energy.

EM: "When there is money to be made, as with any issue, it becomes highly [politicized]."

PGA: True. ACC is a nearly existential threat to the largest, wealthiest, most powerful industry in the history of the world, the oil industry. Currently we use ~3% of oil for chemical synthesis; the rest is burned. Barring 100% CCS (carbon capture & storage), the future size of the oil industry will be ~3% of its current size. The people who run the oil companies wouldn't be very happy with that, would they? Rex Tillerson is already embarrassed about turning over Exxon in worse shape than when he began as CEO.

EM: "It’s truly a travesty that our two-party system turned this issue into a political one instead of a humanitarian one... republicans/conservative[s] and all of these AGW deniers have played a huge role in the polarization of the issue."

PGA: True.

EM: "...so has the other-side."

PGA: That is incorrect. There is no "other side" in science. There is reality & denial of reality.

EM: "...a progressive agenda..."

PGA: There is no "progressive agenda"!!!!! Look, President Obama was capable of perceiving reality; Trump is not. Period. Obama's actions were ENTIRELY due to the intransigence of the Party of No, the Republican Party. They met on 2009 Jan 20th & decided to oppose, en masse, EVERYTHING Obama proposed. They ALWAYS put partisan politics ahead of the interests of the country. It was ALWAYS more important to try to damage Obama than it was to help the country.

Leaving aside that that is borderline treasonous behavior, Obama's actions on the climate were FORCED on him by a Republican Congress that refused to recognize reality & act on the issue. Look, there is NO doubt that regulations are an inferior way to address the problem. But the R's wouldn't let go of their market distortion.

PG Antioch said...

#2

There ARE Republicans who can perceive reality: Bob Inglis was a conservative Congressman from South Caroline who DEIGNED to mention that ACC might be real. The fascist, sociopathic, duplicitous, murderous, anti-competitive wing of the party, mainly in the form of Koch brothers' money, turned on him & forced him out of office. He now lobbies for a carbon tax & other truly free market solutions to the climate problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Inglis

http://www.republicen.org/

I believe there are other Republicans, in & out of government, who are capable of perceiving reality. But those in government are terrified of being Bob-Inglis-ized, thrown out of office by a primary challenge from the right, financed by the Koch brothers & other fossil fuel money.

EM: "I don’t think this minority of 'outlier scientists' supported by free market think tanks should come as any surprise to anyone. An entire industry is being threatened and so is a lot of wealth."

PGA: True.

EM: "...the livelihood of many, many Americans (approximately 170,000) is threatened by regulations on the oil and gas industry..."

PGA: Wrong, wrong & wrong. There are now twice as many jobs in solar power generation as in coal, oil & gas combined when used for power generation. And more jobs in solar than in extraction for all uses of oil & gas. Obama was right: "green" jobs are the future. The fact that the new administration is trying to hallucinate the future in the rear-view mirror is not going to help them, & is not going to change reality.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-solar-power-employs-more-people-more-oil-coal-gas-combined-donald-trump-green-energy-fossil-fuels-a7541971.html

http://www.rechargenews.com/solar/868020/us-solar-industry-bigger-employer-than-oil-and-gas-extraction

And oil & gas are NOT being threatened by "regulations"!!!!! They're being threatened by the REALITY of climate change. Sorry, their ideological delusions & enormous (at least for now...) caches of money do not change the laws of physics.

EM: "...the market intervention thinkers..."

PGA: Again, the "market intervention thinkers" are the ones who desperately want to continue the lack of a carbon tax now. They're forcing their psychotic delusions not only on all life on Earth today, but all life for many millennia into the future, maybe forever.

EM: "...the federal government has largely consisted of these thinkers..."

PGA: Again, WRONG.

EM: "...The Atlantic and The Economist, which... offer much more substance than MSM outlets..."

PGA: He's right again there.

EM: "I pride myself on knowing what both sides are saying about issues."

PGA: There are no "both sides" to the laws of physics. The science is true. Only the politics have "both sides" (& more).

EM: "How do we, as the United States of America, drastically reduce global greenhouse gas emissions? What is your plan of action?"

PGA: Really? Emissions have been falling since 2007. Emissions per unit economic output have been falling since the 1990s. We're already doing it. We just need more help to speed up the transition, which is what the laws of physics, the facts of the paleoclimate & the current state of the Earth make unavoidable.

Remember, a stiff, rising, revenue-neutral carbon tax means a government that is SMALLER AND LESS INTRUSIVE than our current one!!!!! The need for regulations, standards, etc, all go away or are dramatically reduced. If we'd done it 25-30 years ago, when we knew we needed it, we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in today.

PG Antioch said...

#3

Unfortunately, the absolutely undeniable necessity to extract carbon from the atmosphere, &/or perform other heroic, risky maneuvers, will mean a more intrusive government. Sorry. Deniers' actions mean that their progeny will face the kind of draconian government measures they fear most. They could reduce this risk if they were willing to be reasonable now. But they're not. They desperately cling to their delusions.

EM: "...the science is not wrong, it is incomplete."

PGA: Science is always incomplete. But we know plenty enough now to act. It's like a battlefield: if you wait for absolute certainty about the enemy, you're dead. You have to act on your best available information.

EM is like Admiral Nagumo at Midway: he appears to WANT to dawdle. What we need are people like Admirals Fletcher, Nimitz & Spruance, who launched their attacks when the Japanese carriers were barely in range. They knew the most important thing was time. The attack was chaotic & disorganized, but the dive bombers basically settled the Pacific war in 5 minutes when the Kaga, Akagi & Soryu were rendered into blazing hulks. Japan had NO chance after that.

EM: "...don’t see it as a personal attack on you."

PGA: I admit that my name-calling may not be productive with deniers. But I can't avoid the fact that their thinking is so distorted, so biased, they have no hope of perceiving reality.

EM: "...outlandish claims from Al Gore in 'An Inconvenient Truth'."

PGA: WHAT "outlandish claims"?!?!?!?!? Gore said a bunch of things at the time for which the evidence was weak, but since then, GORE HAS BEEN PROVEN RIGHT in case after case!

What did he say about Katrina? He said very warm water in the Gulf contributed to its strength. There is no doubt that this was true. He may have implied this would happen more in a warmer future, but he did not say it.

Many argue that storms are already stronger; Kerry Emanuel of MIT certainly does. We've recently had record numbers of cat 4 & 5 tropical cyclones in the Pacific, & the strongest cyclone ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere. Extratropical cyclones are probably increasing in number & strength. There is very little doubt that extreme weather of all kinds is increasing.

https://www.wunderground.com/news/record-most-category-4-or-5-hurricanes-typhoons

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160714151858.htm

http://eaps4.mit.edu/faculty/Emanuel/publications/research_papers

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=21852

EM: "...no [A]rctic [ice] left by 2013..."

PGA: EM evidently needs to repeat 3rd grade English. Does he know the difference between "could be" & "will be"?!?
Would remedial English help? Shall we actually LISTEN to what Gore said? This was in 2009:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR-d_XNixBY

PG Antioch said...

#4

What he SAID was that Arctic sea ice may be gone in summer in 2030, a typical projection then & now. Then he referred to Dr Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School & said it COULD be gone sooner, according to SOME of the models. He NEVER, EVER, EVER said it "would go away by 2013"!!!!!!!!!

Dr Maslowski gave an interview in 2007 (a prediction which he later backed off of) that there was a 75% chance that the Arctic would be ice-free in Sep (minimum) in 2016, +/- 3 years. And what he meant by "ice-free" was "ice volume down to 20% or less of the 1979-2000 mean" by his model. We almost made it in 2012, when it was ~25%, which would have been ahead of schedule.

Of course DENIERS ALWAYS LIE about what Gore said. Always, always, ALWAYS. EM is perpetuating a lie. Is he just gullible? He claims not to be a denier, but he's perpetuating their bald-faced lies.

I recently reviewed the criticisms leveled by Judge Michael Burton on Gore's film in 2007. It turns out that although the evidence was weak at the time, Gore was right!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

Judge Burton: "Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland 'in the near future'."

PGA: No, he doesn't specify when the rise would occur. But it's the JUDGE who's wrong:

"...if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – 'but only after, and over, millennia'..."

PGA: WRONG! That was the old assumption, but plenty of science since then has shown that much faster break-up of ice sheets is possible. This has been shown by modeling AND by careful study of the paleoclimate.

http://moraymo.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/olearyetal_natgeo_20131.pdf

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/local-destabilization-can-cause-complete-loss-of-west-antarctica2019s-ice-masses

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/18/fundamentally-unstable-scientists-confirm-their-worries-about-east-antarcticas-biggest-glacier/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html

Judge Burton: "The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls 'are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming' but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened."

PGA: There is now! Sea level rise has swallowed multiple Pacific islands, & the inhabitants of several are making permanent evacuation plans.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-rise-swallows-5-whole-pacific-islands/

Judge Burton: "The documentary speaks of global warming 'shutting down the Ocean Conveyor'... the judge said that it was 'very unlikely' that the... Meridional Overturning Circulation would shut down in the future, though it might slow down."

PGA: Actually, there's been a lot of evidence since then that it's slowing already, & the possibility of a complete shutdown is considered much more likely now.

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/atlantic-ocean-overturning-found-to-slow-down-already-today

Judge Burton: "Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed 'an exact fit'. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, 'the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts'."

PGA: Well, we could disagree about the definition of "exact" but the correlation is ~95-99%. Is that not enough to be "exact"?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

PG Antioch said...

#5

Warming causes higher CO2 & higher CO2 causes warming. It "goes in both directions" & is a converse relationship. Is it all that difficult?

Judge Burton: "Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change."

PGA: Ding ding ding! The judge got one right; well, half-right. The disappearing snow on Mt Kilimanjaro isn't due to anthropogenic warming, it's due to anthropogenic deforestation.

Judge Burton: "The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence..."

PGA: Further work has shown that climate change was indeed a major factor in the disappearance of the lake.

http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article116.html

Judge Burton: "Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning..." [etc]

PGA: The evidence may have been thin at the time, but it isn't thin any more. There's lots of evidence that polar bears are in trouble. We don't have adequate data for many areas, but there are more areas with losses than areas with gains.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/09/14/all-polar-bears-across-the-arctic-face-shorter-sea-ice-season/

https://www.carbonbrief.org/polar-bears-and-climate-change-what-does-the-science-say

Judge Burton: "Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors..." [etc]

PGA: Once AGAIN, subsequent evidence has shown terrible coral reef losses due to warming & acidification, both the result of excessive atmospheric CO2.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/03/agencies-say-22-of-barrier-reef-coral-is-dead-correcting-misinterpretation

PGA: So what we have, in case after case after case, is that Gore overstated the evidence at the time of the movie, but since then, he's been shown to be RIGHT!!! We should pay MORE attention to Gore & less to his doubters, including Judge Burton.

Back to EM: "...the bureaucratic nature of the funding process and the lack of accountability that follows this funding."

PGA: He's obviously clueless about how science works. There are very rigorous standards in how grants are awarded. In the publish-or-perish world of research, there is constant pressure to do the most comprehensive, best science.

PG Antioch said...

#6

EM: "...measurable goals..."

PGA: Well, no. Technological research, where there is a near-term profitable goal in sight, can be financed in the private sector, with easily measurable goals. But scientific research, acquiring knowledge for its own sake, is better financed by government. Most of the time, we only gain knowledge with this. But every once in a while, an enormous, civilization-altering invention is made while pursuing "pure" science. Lasers, computers, satellites, biotech, the internet & countless other technologies were supported by government literally for decades before people figured out how to make money from them. In point of fact, you need both technological & scientific research, with both private & governmental funding.

EM: "How about... we also give some funding to these evil coal, oil and gas companies to research waas of cleaning up their own emissions?"

PGA: More technological research that could be financed privately. But I wouldn't object to governmental contributions. There isn't always a bright dividing line between the two.

EM: "...our impact on our climate is a huge, global issue that... will require us to address AGW on a global scale..."

PGA: True.

EM: "The AGW problem is just that, a problem, but we will get nowhere if concessions can't be [made] by either side of the [debate]."

PGA: The laws of physics aren't negotiable; they don't make concessions. Sorry. A stiff, rising, revenue-neutral carbon tax would restore reality to our thinking, making sure the true costs of fossil fuels are included in their prices. This would make markets free & influence behavior in a way that reflects reality instead of our hallucinations & wishful thinking.

EM: "...Trump will undo Obama..."

PGA: Well, no. Psychotic, sociopathic, murderous, fascist ideology doesn't change the laws of physics. Some of our responses might change, but warming will continue. And there are plenty of people who actually CAN perceive reality & will continue to reduce emissions no matter how destructive the new administration tries to be.

EM: "I... consider myself to be a student of science..."

PGA: OK, so read it. Start here:

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

http://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

EM: "...I'm not trying to forward any type of agenda into the climate-change argument [there IS NO "ARGUMENT" about ACC science; the ONLY arguments are over what to do about it]..."

PGA: Of course I disagree. He very much is trying to force an ideology onto the science. Sorry, it won't work.

PG Antioch said...

#7

EM: "...I have no idea which direction the world is going in and the scale of the damage that we will cause."

PGA: Then study the paleoclimate, the laws of physics & the current state of the Earth. The damage will be almost incomprehensible. And I could be 80% wrong & it'd still be catastrophic. The data suggest (among other things) ~10 meters of sea level rise per ~1° C warming. And the only important number in a warming world, Earth system sensitivity, is ~6° C for doubled CO2.

EM: "...the... drastic rise in emissions rates... [in] China and India..."

PGA: Actually, China's emissions appear to have peaked in 2013, & they have made a major commitment to address ACC. They lead the world in manufacture & installation of renewable energy. The IDIOTS in the new US administration are ceding the future to China.

http://carbon-pulse.com/17400/

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/1/17/14294906/china-cancels-coal-plants?utm_campaign=bradplumer&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-to-abandon-millions-of-high-wag
e-jobs-to-china-3554a04796b1#.qmz3ncruf

India has also made progress.

https://thinkprogress.org/indias-unprecedented-plan-to-bring-millions-out-of-poverty-and-power-them-with-clean-energy-885350cf8aff

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/oil-gas/india-will-soon-be-zero-petroleum-import-country-nitin-gadkari/articleshow/54031397.cms

The countries with far fewer resources than the US are making WAY more progress. Meanwhile, we have IDIOTS in charge.

EM: "I believe denial stems from pessimism regarding what we can really do..."

PGA: Then watch Joe Romm from late last year (but skip the intro, LOL):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6ag3b1WCYc#t=2m40s

Again, sorry about the length. I guess I need my own blog so I can sound off, LOL.

PG_Antioch said...

Oops, I see I made a typo on "South Carolina" (not "Caroline").

I estimated that we'd eventually see ~10 meters of sea level rise per ~1° C warming. Jim White of the U of Colorado Boulder says in this recent vid (part 1 of 2) that although it's not linear (it's actually diphasic, or "S-shaped"), it's more like ~20 meters for ~1° C warming under some conditions. He also says we're already in for ~14 meters of SLR, based on current GHG levels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6uCZ_9WIYY

My sections #3 & #4 seem to have been omitted (which I probably deserved for being so verbose, LOL), so the Gore movie story picks up in the middle. Judge Michael Burton was the one who ruled that An Inconvenient Truth shouldn't be shown in schools; he cited multiple inaccuracies & exaggerations in the film. The trouble is that, with subsequent evidence, Gore turned out to be right, &/or Judge Burton wrong, on almost all of them.

citizenschallenge said...

Thank you for mentioning that. Been real busy and sometimes don't pay as much attention as I ought.
I checked my spam folder and #3 & #4 was hiding in there.
So, as they say Fixed That.

I really like what you've done and appreciate you taking the time.
Once I finish with the INDIVISIBLE series (and post my next response to EM, which is almost ready but got side track by politics)
I want to take your entire response and do it up as a guest-post.