The Reef Ain't Dead

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's also a safe bet that at least 2/3 of those same American young people associate "denialism" with the CC movement and not with those who deny the Holocaust ...

Indeed.
This, sort of, defeats (at least diminishes) your "demonizing" argument, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Exile

How so?

Ok, I'll rephrase my observation.
If (which I deny) use of the term "denier" is intended to demonize ACC dissidents, through association with Holocaust deniers, it's (according to your bet) not working (ineffective).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.
This, sort of, defeats (at least diminishes) your "demonizing" argument, doesn't it?

How so?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

They are not a threat to the Wests political system yet..
Populist politics and Nationalism is.. even rising in the normally compliant population of Portugal who are growing tired of the old school hierarchy.

Lawyer and former TV soccer pundit André Ventura leads a right-wing populist party called CHEGA! (ENOUGH!), founded in 2019. Nobody expects him to win on Sunday, as he is polling around 11% compared with more than 60% for incumbent Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. Even so, Ventura, 37, could conceivably place second among the seven candidates, drawing a level of support that until recently was unthinkable and sending a shudder through Portuguese politics.

Indeed - you came close to calling it.
In a very low turnout (39.5%), Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa (cenre-right) has won a second term as Portugal’s president, winning over 61 percent of the vote, improving on the 52 percent he secured in 2016.
Socialist candidate Ana Gomes came second, with 13 percent; while far right-wing populist Andre Ventura came third with 12 percent.
The rest of candidates failed to poll above 5%.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's not about "mountains of data" since none of the actual data is disputed, only its interpretation.

Some of the attack points from the 'anti' side are exactly that - "climategate", "hockey-stick", etc - that the data was messed with.

Also, I don't think that any group has been able to take the mountains of data and produce a scientifically-rigorous alternate scenario that doesn't point to AGW or potentially harmful changes.

...there are plenty of good reasons to wean ourselves off fossil fuels which much of the public is likely onboard with. It just so happens, however, that CC is the most divisive and at the same time seductive for its proponents, and for both those reasons attracts most of the attention, money, and votes for elected officials.

To no-one's surprise I'm sure, I've been looking at this through the other end of the telescope. It's true that in the public eye, just about all the ecological/sustainability eggs are in this one basket, and by keeping CC in the spotlight, and winning at it (public skepticism/denial is high, we can't move past the debate) those with a vested interest in the status quo have won. Paralysis has set in, and we don't see significant movement on ANY front:

• conservation, voluntary or mandated moderation of use, financial tools for carbon emission reduction - all dirty words
• pollution, especially single-use plastics, is getting worse. We in the west are just better at hiding it.
• no help/tools/leadership provided to the developing world to help them clean up or avoid our mistakes
• Income inequality increases, even (... especially) through the pandemic

... big win for the status quo.

And now, a word from our sponsor...

It also serves as a convenient proxy for those with a sense of moral superiority, extreme partisanship, and the age-old human need to dictate and control what others think and do. In short, there are many complex reasons why people resist the prevailing dogma, and blaming it on scientific ignorance (among many other irrelevant and divisive factors) is a grossly simplistic (but convenient) fallacy that serves no productive end.

What is a person without integrity, consistency, conviction? Who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.
This, sort of, defeats (at least diminishes) your "demonizing" argument, doesn't it?

Ok, I'll rephrase my observation.
If (which I deny) use of the term "denier" is intended to demonize ACC dissidents, through association with Holocaust deniers, it's (according to your bet) not working (ineffective).

OK, I see now. You're likely correct, but what's worse? Feeling stigmatized because you do understand the association with the Holocaust, or simply being ignorant of the negative association and going around blithely parroting it? What if you happen upon a Holocaust survivor (a few still left), or one of their family members or friends (many still around)?

But the larger point is why we are even teaching this manner of expression to younger generations? As discussed, it distorts and leaves ambiguous the most pressing AGW issue, namely severity of impacts and commensurate remedies. The "denier" label merely contributes to the propaganda and misinformation that leads people to believe it's a simple, binary issue, and deters thoughtful cost/benefit analysis. Just look at the 'Greta' phenomenom. These threads are a perfect example of oversimplification.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You know, we're a quarter of a century into the global warming scare and nothing bad has really happened. Despite the cacophony of doomsayer cries, the GBR isn't dead, the poles haven't melted, crops haven't failed, wars driven by climate change haven't eventuated etcetera etcetera. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Oh really? There's LOTS going wrong. List here.

Not all directly caused by excessive use of fossil fuel... but many are, and they will be helped by a reduction in fossil-fuel use. And all require focus and effort and maybe some small sacrifice.

But as I just pointed out earlier - we're stalled on acting on CC, and on just about everything else too.

At least you'll get a few more years of coal sales to China

... of the many theories banded around on the alleged consequences of climate change, I can't recall reading one that includes a "candle is brightest just before it flames out" scenario.

.... don't know what you mean there. That's the do-nothing scenario. Things will seem peachy right up until they aren't.

Maybe, just maybe, a warming world aint that big of a deal in the big picture.

That's a hell of a bet. But still not much of a reason to not consider ANY changes, no matter how small. Being proactive doesn't mean feudal agrarian dystopia.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Some of the attack points from the 'anti' side are exactly that - "climategate", "hockey-stick", etc - that the data was messed with.

Not really sure these were/are challenges to the data itself or its interpretation. Or according to some, manipulation. And then there's the controversy over the "adjustments" (much of which is SOP and legit). This is all well above my pay grade and so have declined to opine on it. I do think the satellite data is itself accepted by all camps, with only its interpretation (somewhat) controversial.

Also, I don't think that any group has been able to take the mountains of data and produce a scientifically-rigorous alternate scenario that doesn't point to AGW or potentially harmful changes.

I think this is correct, but the burden of proof/persuasion doesn't simply shift because you and others want it to. Not when you're trying to convince people they need to give up what they've earned.

To no-one's surprise I'm sure, I've been looking at this through the other end of the telescope. It's true that in the public eye, just about all the ecological/sustainability eggs are in this one basket, and by keeping CC in the spotlight, and winning at it (public skepticism/denial is high, we can't move past the debate) those with a vested interest in the status quo have won. Paralysis has set in, and we don't see significant movement on ANY front:

• conservation, voluntary or mandated moderation of use, financial tools for carbon emission reduction - all dirty words
• pollution, especially single-use plastics, is getting worse. We in the west are just better at hiding it.
• no help/tools/leadership provided to the developing world to help them clean up or avoid our mistakes
• Income inequality increases, even (... especially) through the pandemic

... big win for the status quo.

I don't see any of this as "win/lose," and don't think that's a mature or productive way of looking at it.

And now, a word from our sponsor...



What is a person without integrity, consistency, conviction? Who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

That's your personal outlook that informs your personal politics. OK with me until it (inevitably) leads to intolerance for others. Fortunately for modern, multicultural, complex democracies such as ours, your level of partisanship is mostly ignored by the masses who have more urgent things to worry about, although there is a troubling trend of such extremes gaining strength on both sides. In my view, there's not much difference between extremes, no matter what ideologies they wrap themselves in, since it all leads to the same undesirable place. I don't find moderation attractive because I lack conviction, but because I've been fortunate to have always been surrounded by family, friends and in professional relationships with people of all different backgrounds, beliefs, and political orientation. It teaches tolerance and humility, requires compromise, and is an effective buffer against resentment and hate.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

That's your personal outlook that informs your personal politics. OK with me until it (inevitably) leads to intolerance for others. Fortunately for modern, multicultural, complex democracies such as ours, your level of partisanship is mostly ignored by the masses who have more urgent things to worry about, although there is a troubling trend of such extremes gaining strength on both sides. In my view, there's not much difference between extremes, no matter what ideologies they wrap themselves in, since it all leads to the same undesirable place.

Yes, a nice fat dollop of both-sides, thanks.

You don't know enough to call me rigidly intolerant on everything. Yes, in the CC threads I am less than kind to those just endlessly repeating the tired old anti cliches or attacking science. I do try to engage where I think there's a chance the person will debate intelligently. I do make my arguments forcefully and sometimes provocatively, maybe over the top sometimes. But I haven't threatened anyone's life. Everyone is free to engage, rebut or ignore.

Your endless ad-hom attack - how is that advancing the central arguments? Makes one think you're just after a petty win instead of fostering real discussion.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes, a nice fat dollop of both-sides, thanks.

You don't know enough to call me rigidly intolerant on everything. Yes, in the CC threads I am less than kind to those just endlessly repeating the tired old anti cliches or attacking science. I do try to engage where I think there's a chance the person will debate intelligently. I do make my arguments forcefully and sometimes provocatively, maybe over the top sometimes. But I haven't threatened anyone's life. Everyone is free to engage, rebut or ignore.

Your endless ad-hom attack - how is that advancing the central arguments? Makes one think you're just after a petty win instead of fostering real discussion.

You really should give the "ad hominem," "trolling," "" retorts a rest. Quite overdone, with your applications quite self-serving. It's the "boy who cried wolf" problem. Only a suggestion . . . .

I do think you may be right about the CC issue being rather stalled, but I doubt we'd agree on the reasons. I suspect there may be significant pushback against the new US administration's efforts to return to the previous status quo. We're already seeing opposition to the renewed Keystone closure from unions, once a stalwart of Dem support. I'm also noticing less reluctance on the part of the Left to jump to China's defense every time the recklessness and hypocrisy of their own climate policies are pointed out. Maybe it has something to do with their alleged genocide against the Uyghurs? Hopefully this will all lead to more exposure and support from the pragmatists in the environmental/CC movement. You know, the ones lacking "integrity, consistency, conviction"() but also the ones most likely to garner broad appeal. Of course, once the gig is up the ideologues will follow along like they always do, claiming they were onboard all along of course.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed - you came close to calling it.
In a very low turnout (39.5%), Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa (cenre-right) has won a second term as Portugal’s president, winning over 61 percent of the vote, improving on the 52 percent he secured in 2016.
Socialist candidate Ana Gomes came second, with 13 percent; while far right-wing populist Andre Ventura came third with 12 percent.
The rest of candidates failed to poll above 5%.

DE Sousa is a nice guy.. man of the people type of bloke and very popular because of that..
The main discontent is with the Government as opposed to the figurehead..

[lestersails]

[QUOTE=boatman61;3328675]

Originally Posted by lestersails

I try to please..
Just an example of 'scientific studies' and links you asked for.. they just don't agree with your opinion.. welcome to denialism..

If humor is the goal, you have definitely succeeded! And I certainly agree with your use of the scare quotes - because they are not scientific studies.

But to put a fine point on it - they have nothing to do with my opinions. It is essential not to conflate opinions with assessments of evidence. They are just not the same and conflating them is an assault on rational thinking, established during the enlightenment.

I have made an assessment of AGW/ACC that it has a sufficiently strong theoretical basis buttressed by an enormous mass of data and that the theoretical objections are seriously weak and the contrary evidence so little and so bad as to consider the thing to be scientifically validated.

I also have opinions about it. First and foremost, I don't like it one bit. I also have opinions about the moral position of a fossil fuel company's motivations. Or about reasonableness of the person who buys a Ford F350 truck to commute to their cubicle. We can argue about those opinions all we want but they have nothing to do with the validity of AGW/ACC - they are just my opinions and worth nuthin'.

But I won't consider changing my assessment of AGW/ACC based on anyone's opinions, because they are irrelevant.

And if, some years hence, a better theoretical model comes along with robust data to support it (and also is consistent with and explains prior data), I am willing to change my assessment.

It is like color preferences. We can have opinions as to whether red or blue is the most attractive color. But we can't argue over the consensus that electromagnetic radiation modeled as a wave has red with a longer wavelength than blue. Nor is it germane if you get a ticket for running a red light that the wave-particle duality of EMR in quantum mechanics has not been clearly resolved. It is sufficiently well understood that you should have stopped.

AGW/ACC and its consequences are sufficiently well understood that they are established and that we need to massively curtail fossil fuels.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

I applaud your manner of expressing absolute confidence which I'm sure is sincerely held, but if your test for burden shifting is the level of certainty you attempt to analogize to then you are mistaken. It's not about "mountains of data" since none of the actual data is disputed, only its interpretation. It's not about believing in the (selectively chosen) "science" since the only component of AGW that appears to enjoy broad scientific consensus doesn't even appear on your list. As for the modeling, it's accuracy has a history of being quite controversial within the science community, in part over difficulty establishing baselines. One can always find research and studies which support their particular position, but I don't think it enjoys the level of certainty you and others would like it to. I would encourage you to do some (more objective) research into this.

But most importantly, and even if we assume the accuracy of (1) & (2) on your list, there is hardly the level of scientific certainly on (3) & (4) that you profess. This is critical, since if you want to build the level of public consensus needed to convince people to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels (via taxation or otherwise), you do in fact carry the burden of supporting it with sufficient scientific certainty that says the impacts from AGW will be severe enough to justify a hit on their standard of living and, for lower income people, potential impoverishment. Otherwise you'll have the "yellow jackets" of France back in the streets, and only encourage people who are about done with simply trusting the word of others who arrogantly claim an undeserved monopoly on what's good for them. Imo, the recent surge in so-called "cancel culture" looks like a desperate attempt to achieve through suppression, shaming and in some cases coercion what couldn't be achieved through persuasion and therefore responsible means. IOW, once people resort to derogatory labels and derision, the argument has been lost.

It's a shame since, as has been pointed out, there are plenty of good reasons to wean ourselves off fossil fuels which much of the public is likely onboard with. It just so happens, however, that CC is the most divisive and at the same time seductive for its proponents, and for both those reasons attracts most of the attention, money, and votes for elected officials. It also serves as a convenient proxy for those with a sense of moral superiority, extreme partisanship, and the age-old human need to dictate and control what others think and do. In short, there are many complex reasons why people resist the prevailing dogma, and blaming it on scientific ignorance (among many other irrelevant and divisive factors) is a grossly simplistic (but convenient) fallacy that serves no productive end. Imho that is . . . .

Ahhhh, I think I am beginning to understand this. As you suggest, this entire line of argument may have nothing to do with AGW/ACC itself. It is instead a manifestation of the now fashionable rage at the establishment, the elite, the experts. There is nothing in here that is scientifically valid or serious. It is just misrepresentations, venom, resentment, and victimhood.

Irrespective of how it might make a person feel, it is nevertheless true that there are people out there who know a lot more (enormously more) than you or I do about many fields of knowledge. Their evaluations of the theories and data of their field matter much more more than do yours or mine. In most cases, my views of their fields are worthless. So are yours. Some folks these days seem to think it is acceptable to reject something and consider it false just because they don't like it or understand it - they think their opinions negate knowledge. They advance flimsy arguments and even conspiracy theories to try to make them go away. It is wrong, it is ugly, and it needs to stop. It would be as if a newbie sailor thought their opinions about the Bristol 47.7 negated your knowledge of it. Ridiculous.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by lestersails

AGW/ACC and its consequences are sufficiently well understood that they are established and that we need to massively curtail fossil fuels.

But that alone is not enough and is a red herring to my mind..
Of greater urgency is the banning of deforestation and reclaiming land lost over the last 100yrs so it can regenerate and become an effective carbon sink and oxygen generator once again..
Human life has expanded exponentially in the last 100 years.. to nature's detriment.
To quote your HIV analogy.. if the immune system is destroyed, AIDS related disabilities follow soon after.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by boatman61

But that alone is not enough and is a red herring to my mind..
Of greater urgency is the banning of deforestation and reclaiming land lost over the last 100yrs so it can regenerate and become an effective carbon sink and oxygen generator once again.

Hi Boatman
I think you are right that it may not be enough (though I would not agree that it is a red herring*). It will be important to model reforestation and other potential natural carbon sinks because there could be tradeoffs - we can use X amount of fossil fuels if we reforest Y acres. Costs and benefits and practical realities are important there.


*A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. I think both are important and you added one that I was not emphasizing.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

It is essential not to conflate opinions with assessments of evidence. They are just not the same and conflating them is an assault on rational thinking, established during the enlightenment.

I have made an assessment of AGW/ACC that it has a sufficiently strong theoretical basis buttressed by an enormous mass of data and that the theoretical objections are seriously weak and the contrary evidence so little and so bad as to consider the thing to be scientifically validated.

I also have opinions about it. First and foremost, I don't like it one bit. I also have opinions about the moral position of a fossil fuel company's motivations. Or about reasonableness of the person who buys a Ford F350 truck to commute to their cubicle. We can argue about those opinions all we want but they have nothing to do with the validity of AGW/ACC - they are just my opinions and worth nuthin'.

But I won't consider changing my assessment of AGW/ACC based on anyone's opinions, because they are irrelevant.

I'm having some trouble reconciling the bolded parts and what follows each of them. You acknowledge you're not an expert, so what exactly is the difference between your assessment of AGW and your (or others) opinions on AGW?

Originally Posted by lestersails

Irrespective of how it might make a person feel, it is nevertheless true that there are people out there who know a lot more (enormously more) than you or I do about many fields of knowledge. Their evaluations of the theories and data of their field matter much more more than do yours or mine. In most cases, my views of their fields are worthless. So are yours. Some folks these days seem to think it is acceptable to reject something and consider it false just because they don't like it or understand it - they think their opinions negate knowledge. They advance flimsy arguments and even conspiracy theories to try to make them go away. It is wrong, it is ugly, and it needs to stop. It would be as if a newbie sailor thought their opinions about the Bristol 47.7 negated your knowledge of it. Ridiculous.

I agree with all of this, except that I would (and do) welcome opinions about my boat, yea or nay. They would either confirm my own opinions, or better inform them, whether the newbie sailor was being ridiculous or not. Who knows, perhaps that newbie sailor was an engineer in a former life and has something constructive to offer. The last thing I'd do is what you appear to be engaged in, namely laying claim to more knowledge than you've earned and having all the answers. I don't know about a "mountain" of evidence, but there is certainly plenty of science which supports your certainty over the severity of impacts and potential remedies, but I don't think it's even debatable that the collective body of science is unsettled. I understand your opinion on the matter, could see a case for being proactive (i.e. "just in case"), but please don't arrogantly claim it represents the "science" without at least doing some of your own homework. As you say, nobody cares about your opinion or mine.