Accuracy of Climate Models

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Accuracy of Climate Models

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

I recently saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4 by the libertarian think tank PragerU and was wondering if you guys could help me understand it. I don't know a great deal about climate change, besides that it is scientific consensus that it is happening due to human activities, so anything would help. The video is very vague and there are no citations in the description, but the speaker is a professor at Princeton University.
User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Re: Accuracy of Climate Models

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:21 am I recently saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4 by the libertarian think tank PragerU and was wondering if you guys could help me understand it. I don't know a great deal about climate change, besides that it is scientific consensus that it is happening due to human activities, so anything would help. The video is very vague and there are no citations in the description, but the speaker is a professor at Princeton University.
I know that this isn't relevant to the topic but I wouldn't really consider PragerU libertarian as libertarians tend to have socially progressive views as well as right-wing economic views. PragerU definitely does not have these socially progressive views and if you put Dennis Prager in the same room with Gary Johnson and made sure that they avoided the topic of economics entirely, they would have much to disagree on.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Accuracy of Climate Models

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:51 amI know that this isn't relevant to the topic but I wouldn't really consider PragerU libertarian as libertarians tend to have socially progressive views as well as right-wing economic views. PragerU definitely does not have these socially progressive views and if you put Dennis Prager in the same room with Gary Johnson and made sure that they avoided the topic of economics entirely, they would have much to disagree on.
The people that introduced me to PragerU kind of identified them as libertarian, but you might be right.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Accuracy of Climate Models

Post by Jebus »

I think he makes a good point. Perhaps it would have helped if he mentioned the fact that climate change is real and caused by humans and that any temperature predictions could be either higher or lower than the current estimates.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Accuracy of Climate Models

Post by PsYcHo »

I think his main point was that regardless of the causation, it's impossible to predict the outcome. Using financial tactics to try to manipulate carbon output (often for a financial gain to certain parties) is the equivalent of making a bet on a roulette table. Red means the icecaps melt! Black means we averted the next ice age! Oh no, we landed on green! Everybody loses but the house....
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
mrvegan
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:40 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Accuracy of Climate Models

Post by mrvegan »

a very interesting amicus brief has been filed in one of the climate lawsuits. You can find some information about the authors, all highly esteemed scientists. https://www.thegwpf.com/prominent-u-s-scientists-submit-brief-in-climate-science-court-hearing/

I really think veganism needs to bring more focus on other environmental concerns and leave the co2 as a "may" or the backlash is going to be "bring on the beef, the climate scam lied to us" and all the other forms of environmental pollution will continue.

Interesting read in light of groupthink. http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf
Rule
oneisthatagroupofpeoplecometoshareacommonvieworbeliefthatinsome
way is not properly based on reality. They may believe they have all sorts of evidence
that confirms that their opinion is right, but their belief cannot ultimately be tested
in a way that confirms this beyond doubt. In essence, therefore, it is no more than a
shared belief.
Rule two is that, precisely because their shared view cannot be subjected to ex-
ternal proof, they then feel the need to reinforce its authority by elevating it into a
‘consensus’, a word Janis himself emphasised. To those who subscribe to the ‘con-
sensus’, the common belief seems intellectually and morally so self-evident that all
right-thinking people must agree with it. The one thing they cannot afford to allow
is that anyone, either within their group or outside it, should question or challenge it.
Once established, the essence of the belief system must be defended at all costs.
also reminds me of how some raw vegans operate :)
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Accuracy of Climate Models

Post by brimstoneSalad »

mrvegan wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:53 am a very interesting amicus brief has been filed in one of the climate lawsuits. You can find some information about the authors, all highly esteemed scientists. https://www.thegwpf.com/prominent-u-s-scientists-submit-brief-in-climate-science-court-hearing/
Wow, they found three!
Three prominent skeptical scientists have submitted their climate report to the federal court for the landmark March 21 climate science trial hearing.
Yes, you can find nutcases even among credentialed scientists. Creationists found a lot more in their dissent from Darwinism.
The question is overwhelming consensus.

Have you heard of project Steve?
https://ncse.com/project-steve

I'm sorry to hear this climate denialism propaganda has convinced you. This is creationism/moon-landing hoax level stuff mrvegan.

mrvegan wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:53 amI really think veganism needs to bring more focus on other environmental concerns and leave the co2 as a "may" or the backlash is going to be "bring on the beef, the climate scam lied to us" and all the other forms of environmental pollution will continue.
You sound very sure of yourself there. You just know that the backlash will be that, because you know it's a scam? Come on, please be a little more critical.

You're advancing a conspiracy theory here. Scientific consensus is clear. The only people challenging that are nutcases.

mrvegan wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:53 amThey may believe they have all sorts of evidence
that confirms that their opinion is right, but their belief cannot ultimately be tested
in a way that confirms this beyond doubt
.
:lol: Nothing can be tested beyond ANY doubt, only a reasonable doubt. Even hard solipsism can't be absolutely disproved.

That's just textbook science denialism if you're talking about climate change. Anthropogenic climate change has been confirmed through multiple lines of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Please actually educate yourself on the evidence before promoting conspiracy theories.

You might as well deny evolution as "historical science" like Ken Ham does, or even claim the Earth is flat (which can't be tested beyond ANY doubt; you can always doubt the tests if you're insane).

Now if you want to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change BUT argue that there are benefits to global warming too, and not just risks, then you can surely do so. That's a debate worth having. Dismissing scientific evidence is not.
There will be small benefits to crop yield in some locations which were otherwise too cold to grow in, but:

1. Incident sunlight is usually the limiting factor for agriculture in the very high and low latitude regions, others benefit from greenhouse growing or indoor starts, so the net benefit isn't that large.
2. We already produce enough food to feed the world, and should have no problem feeding the world's projected peak populations as long as we quit wasting resources on animal agriculture. We don't need to farm the entire surface of the planet. (If you're vegan, you probably already know this)
3. There is such a thing as too hot. Much larger (and very important with high sunlight) regions of the world will likely be rendered less hospitable to conventional agriculture, and unlike with heat you can't trap cold in a greenhouse to keep the plants from overheating. You can shade them, but that impacts productivity. Ideal conditions for plants are moderate temperatures with a lot of sunlight (ideally diffuse through a greenhouse, actually, so slightly lower temperature outside is ideal).
4. Even if it's a wash long term in agricultural terms (which it may be, we'd have to do an analysis of land area and temperature changes), in the short-term global warming will cause massive problems with shifting weather patterns and damage to infrastructure (even in the developed world).
Populations will have to move, and large numbers of people will be displaced and die in conflict or from disease as a result. We've seen this kind of thing play out in history before over resources. We *could* in theory prepare for that, but we won't. The developed world will prepare and mind their own, and will leave the developing world to scramble and suffer rather than spending their own money to help them (current aid budgets are comically low, under 1%).

Global warming might not be a doomsday scenario for all of us, but it's a serious problem and will be incredibly expensive. It would be foolish to rule it out as an existential risk due to the conflict it creates. We also might not be able to stop it, but if we can just slow it down we can give people time to adapt to it and not cause as much conflict and human suffering and death as a result.
mrvegan wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:53 amprecisely because their shared view cannot be subjected to external proof, they then feel the need to reinforce its authority by elevating it into a ‘consensus’
No, it's consensus because it's proved. :roll:
The reason people argue consensus is because the average person isn't smart enough or interested enough to understand the evidence. You probably won't even read that NASA link that lays out the evidence for you.

Republicans used to recognize global warming as a serious problem. The unfortunate fact is that global warming has become politicized (thanks Al Gore) which has led to group thinking among conservatives and conspiratorial denialism at odds with the scientific community.

This is particularly unfortunate, because it's Republicans who are most supportive of one of the key solutions to global warming: nuclear power.
We have one party that denies the problem, and another that denies the solution and wants to solve it with something impractical like solar and wind.
Post Reply