We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

1131416181966

Comments

  • #2


    I know these people are hypocrites, Leonardo DiCarprio etc., but it doesn't mean that our current rates of consumption and lifestyles are not completely unsustainable, especially in rich countries.

    The 'whataboutery' of pointing at celebrities living opulent lifestyles as an argument that .... something something disregard the science

    What is it an argument for?

    When was the last time anyone on any of these threads said 'We must stop climate change because some politician Biden says we should?

    Anyone who knows anything about the science behind climate change understands the importance of convincing the politicians that we need to act, not the importance of being convinced by politicians who are obviously not 100% neutral on any topic by virtue of their profession

    Politicians can ride jetpacks fuelled by powdered ivory mixed with baby seal teardrops and and mermaid placenta to the climate summits and awards ceremonies for all I care, as long as they take the policy decisions seriously, listen to the most qualified experts, backed up by the best available scientific and economic data, and make the right decisions that will affect long term change to mitigate climate change

    We have more than enough data to tell us what our maximum carbon budget is to reduce the risk of runaway climate change. Even this may be overstating how much room we have to spare. What we need is action

    What the 'skeptic' types want is to prevent action, so they engage in 'whataboutery' to make themselves feel like they have a leg to stand on

    Whataboutery never answers the fundamental question about 'what should we do about climate change' It merely sidelines that discussion and tries to shift the focus on irrelevancies


  • #2


    I suppose this may be an over-simplification, but consider this -- if you heard there was a one in three chance of a nearby river overflowing its banks and affecting your property, you would very likely start rounding up sandbags or moving vulnerable items to higher ground.
    What would you do if there was a 1 in 3 chance of the river bursting its banks and never subsiding?
    In this scenario, your property is lost, as is all the value in the land and buildings occupying it

    Sandbags won't cut it. What would you do?
    When we hear that there's a one in three chance of the seas rising, our response is to tax gasoline and airline flights.
    There is actually a 1 in 1 chance of sea levels rising. They're already rising. There is a 1 in 3 chance of certain places being inundated by x date. If you make x date x date + 50 years, that 1 in 3 chance becomes 1 in 1.2 chance

    In your analogy, you never considered what was causing the 1 in 3 chance. If the cause of this was a proposed new development upstream of you house. Your first response should definitely be to object to that development and use regulations (planning) to try to stop that development from happening before it causes that 33% risk of your house flooding

    Why do you guys always grossely over simplify the policy responses to climate change? The response is not, and should not be only to tax gasoline and airline flights. Who says that it is? Not a single credible person

    What are the actual responses to reduce that 33% risk to perhaps, a 10% risk?
    If you're being honest, there are a whole array of proposals, and depending on each region's resources,they will be different everywhere, but what is agreed, is that we need to get to net zero carbon emissions as quickly as possible, and every year this is delayed, it locks in more warming, and makes the practical solutions more and more expensive and likely to fail.


    I tuned in some program which promised (or threatened) a Dutch environmentalist touring Greenland to look into the climate change situation. Yes, I am somewhat of a masochist. But actually, I was rather surprised that he blended into his presentation a mixture of the usual stuff and interviews with more practical-minded Dutch government officials who were talking basically the way I tend to do, the seas are probably going to rise, so what should we be doing about that?

    Of course in the Netherlands, they can't afford to fool around with impractical solutions, the bulk of the country could be floating away if they don't plan ahead.
    You are only surprised because you've got this idea that all environmentalists are airheads who think we can wave a magic wand and everything will be fine

    Every credible person knows that dealing with climate change will require a mix of strategies to (A) mitigate the harm already baked into our future climate by our past and current emissions, and (B) stabilize our atmospheric concentrations of GHGs as quickly as possible to reduce the amount of (A) mitigation we will need to invest in going forward

    It's been known for decades, and formalised in the 2006 stern review that the costs of mitigation are far far far higher than the costs of transitioning to carbon neutral technology.

    The costs of transitioning are high, but they are short/medium term fixed costs, the costs of mitigation as well as suffering the enormous losses in assets and productive land from climate change are current costs that amplify over time, plus those transition costs would always need to be paid on top of the mitigation costs eventually but much more expensively as more would need to be done in a shorter and shorter timeframe the longer we leave it


  • #2


    If you don't want to bother wasting your time watching the video, here are the graphs he showed, albeit some for the US. You're welcome...

    554889.jpg

    Why not link to the source of your data Gaoth?
    What kind of scientific paper has 'hidden data' all over it, and a graph that plots sea levels by whichever US president happened to be in office?

    When you look at these graphs, do those things not at least spark your curiosity about whether this may not be the best source to be citing in a science forum?


  • #2


    You did not dispute his claims in the videos. One of the sources you referenced is a smear site run by a public relations firm based in Canada called Hoggan and Associates. It is their paid job to smear and spin, and they have a long track record of doing so. This site has contributions from an Irish activist by the name of John Gibbons, who occasionally turns up plying his opinions in Irish print and broadcast media.



    The guy in this video does not know what peer review is

    Peer review is not 'everyone agrees with this'

    It is 'i have sent my paper off to be verified by experts in the field. They will check my calculations, make sure my methodology is not flawed, and test if my conclusions follow from my premises and that that Data supports this"

    And his point about scientific achievement comes from the fringes, this is true about .001% of the time (being generous)

    It's so rare that we can name the people who broke the Mould
    Copernicus,Newton, Tyndall, Einstein,Planck, Bohr... They usually have laws, branches of science, institutes etc named after them

    But the vast majority of science is incremental. Professional scientists, using established science, to slowly creep towards new tecnologies, understandings, all of them standing on the shoulders of the countless hard working scientists that came before them.


  • #2


    Instead of adopting the standard Akrasia tactic of Googling the man before looking at the content, why don't you (and others) rubbish the actual graphs I posted above? I went to a lot of bother screenshotting them so that you wouldn't have to go through the pain of watch the video (I know, I can't listen to that voice either). If he is, as you say, full of it then it should be very easy for you to post simple evidence highlighting how each one of his graphs is fake.

    Not googling the man, it's called 'checking the source'

    I think it's quite important to check the source before repeating claims on the internet. Surely you agree?

    If a source for a graph is a man who hides the data and has a history of falsifying data, and doesn't properly cite his own sources, then shouldn't this be a relevant factor in deciding whether to take this data seriously?


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Why not link to the source of your data Gaoth?
    What kind of scientific paper has 'hidden data' all over it, and a graph that plots sea levels by whichever US president happened to be in office?

    When you look at these graphs, do those things not at least spark your curiosity about whether this may not be the best source to be citing in a science forum?

    Eh, read the first line. Those are screenshots of the graphs he used in the video. He has linked them himself. I merely posted them here as some people didn't want to watch it.


  • #2


    Eh, read the first line. Those are screenshots of the graphs he used in the video. He has linked them himself. I merely posted them here as some people didn't want to watch it.
    So what is the source used by Tony Heller?

    Given that Tony Heller was already dismissed as a credible source in the post you responded to

    Taking a screenshot of a video from someone suspected as a loon does as much to further the argument as to take a screenshot of this guy
    The-Game-5b.png


  • #2


    Can I ask, on what basis is Tony Heller a prima facia credible source?

    If I quote NASA or the MET, or IPCC, i expect that the information has most likely gone through an editorial process that would reduce the risk of fraudulent data getting through the filters

    What does Tony Heller have on his own personal blog filled with his own hand made non-peer reviewed blog posts filled with home-made graphs and graphics that make you think he is more credible than the likes of the IPCC?


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    So what is the source used by Tony Heller?

    Given that Tony Heller was already dismissed as a credible source in the post you responded to

    Taking a screenshot of a video from someone suspected as a loon does as much to further the argument as to take a screenshot of this guy

    His sources are linked in his video. If you haven't watched it then you won't see them.

    Did you read my analysis of Mallen Baker's video on Heller's video?


  • #2


    His sources are linked in his video. If you haven't watched it then you won't see them.

    Did you read my analysis of Mallen Baker's video on Heller's video?

    Tony Heller has been caught multiple times misrepresenting his sources and falsifying graphs

    It is not good enough to use Heller as a source and then say that Heller links to his sources.

    It is always preferable to link to the primary source for your evidence, not some bloggers interpretation of that data. Especially when those interpretations have ‘hidden data’ labels all over them

    Alex Jones references some of his sources too btw


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The 'whataboutery' of pointing at celebrities living opulent lifestyles as an argument that .... something something disregard the science

    What is it an argument for?

    This is an argument justifying hypocrisy. I could listen to a known sex trafficker on his feminist beliefs but I’d probably take him more seriously if he stopped sex trafficking. If he was a politician who had otherwise done good works on feminist causes I’d still suggest that he stop sex trafficking before I took him seriously. And remember that a large group of people think that green beliefs are ways to make the middle income and working class people poorer while maintaining the privileges of the elites. The great reset. A form of neo feudalism.

    I doubt that there’s anything so well organised but if you are lecturing people, if you are scolding people, then you should perhaps try to be as moral as the people you are lecturing rather than more immoral than the people you are lecturing. That’s why the Catholic Church lost its power after all.

    The first item on the agenda of the green movement should be to ban private jets. Seriously.


  • #2


    You're going to have to expand on that a bit. Who said they were?

    A rake of weather events were listed in the OP as proof of climate change. MT has put forward reasons as to why it's not necessarily so.

    The main problem I have with those who are full on climate changers is that they use every severe weather event as evidence of it. Irish media will wheel out an expert climatologist when we get a bad storm or heavy rain causing flooding or a drought etc etc and they'll say this is what we can expect more of on the years to come. And we're not really. It's a drizzly dulll morning out there. Climate change?


  • #2


    fvp4 wrote: »
    This is an argument justifying hypocrisy. I could listen to a known sex trafficker on his feminist beliefs but I’d probably take him more seriously if he stopped sex trafficking. If he was a politician who had otherwise done good works on feminist causes I’d still suggest that he stop sex trafficking before I took him seriously. And remember that a large group of people think that green beliefs are ways to make the middle income and working class people poorer while maintaining the privileges of the elites. The great reset. A form of neo feudalism.
    So if a sex trafficker advocates for feminism, does that make all feminist arguments automatically wrong?
    This is where you guys go off the rails. You look for examples of hypocrisy as a way to discredit the science. Its an ad hominem and a straw man argument

    Nobody (seriously) quotes any of these celebrities to support their arguments that we need to tackle climate change

    Referring to Leonardo Di Caprio as an argument against climate science is like me trying to debunk quantum theory because Charles Manson said something good about it one time

    I doubt that there’s anything so well organised but if you are lecturing people, if you are scolding people, then you should perhaps try to be as moral as the people you are lecturing rather than more immoral than the people you are lecturing. That’s why the Catholic Church lost its power after all.

    The first item on the agenda of the green movement should be to ban private jets. Seriously.
    The world is full of hypocrites. The existence of a hypocrite does not invalidate the argument. It's the fundamental basis of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy


  • #2


    The main problem I have with those who are full on climate changers is that they use every severe weather event as evidence of it. Irish media will wheel out an expert climatologist when we get a bad storm or heavy rain causing flooding or a drought etc etc and they'll say this is what we can expect more of on the years to come. And we're not really. It's a drizzly dulll morning out there. Climate change?

    'Full on climate changers' Aka every single credible scientific body on the planet?

    Climate change affects all of our weather, simply because weather is a chaotic phenomenon where any input has cascading affects on interactions across the system

    Climate change has already increased global average temperature by about 1c since pre-industrial times
    for context, the global average surface temperature was roughly 14c in the pre-industrial record, but it is about 15c now
    This is not a trivial increase and it doesn't even include the changes in ocean temperatures (which have a huge impact on weather and climate)

    The reason climatologists say we can expect more of x weather event in the future, is because that is what the climate models tell them is likely to happen. Climate is about trends and probabilities, without any climate change, a once in a century storm happens about once every hundred years, with climate change, it happens every 30 years, and as the world warms, what was once an extreme event can become 'normal' weather that we need to prepare for in the same way that hurricanes are normal in the gulf coast and tornados are 'normal' in the central plains of the US


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    So if a sex trafficker advocates for feminism, does that make all feminist arguments automatically wrong?

    Well it would invalidate his feminism and any feminism that allowed sex trafficking to continue. His argument would be "I can sex traffic women because I am elite but you there should be gender quotas in the BBC", or something like that. That would be his ideology. Both should exist.

    I am merely saying that in that case we should ban the sex trafficking for the elites before, or at least at the same time as, having gender quotas in the BBC.
    This is where you guys go off the rails. You look for examples of hypocrisy as a way to discredit the science. Its an ad hominem and a straw man argument

    I didn't say anything about the science. I support the science. This is your Strawman fallacy. Not mine.
    Nobody (seriously) quotes any of these celebrities to support their arguments that we need to tackle climate change

    Referring to Leonardo Di Caprio as an argument against climate science is like me trying to debunk quantum theory because Charles Manson said something good about it one time

    Don't think I mentioned Di Caprio. Strawman fallacy.
    The world is full of hypocrites. The existence of a hypocrite does not invalidate the argument. It's the fundamental basis of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy

    I didn't say anything about the science of climate change, you inferred that. I merely suggested the first item on the agenda be banning private planes. You don't seem to agree. Can you make that position clear? You don't think they should be banned?

    I also don't agree with carbon taxes on flights but have more radical solutions that would affect Kerry. But first private jets, ya or nay?


  • #2


    fvp4 wrote: »
    Well it would invalidate his feminism and any feminism that allowed sex trafficking to continue. His argument would be "I can sex traffic women because I am elite but you there should be gender quotas in the BBC", or something like that. That would be his ideology. Both should exist.
    No it wouldn't, it would demonstrate that this person does not follow his own advice, but it wouldn't invalidate his arguments. Arguments are not predicated on who makes them, they are evaluated based on the premises, the conclusion, and whether the supporting evidence is reliable and consistent with the argument

    You could argue that every single person is a hypocrite in at least some areas of their life.
    I am merely saying that in that case we should ban the sex trafficking for the elites before, or at least at the same time as, having gender quotas in the BBC.
    Here the sex trafficking analogy only gets in the way of the argument, so i'll leave it aside. What you appear to be saying is that we should ban wasteful opulence before we begin to tax ordinary people's carbon consumption

    Its an argument for equity, that those who waste the most should be the first to reduce their emissions

    Is this a fair representation?

    If so, that is exactly what the vast majority of climate change campaigners advocate for. Is there a single climate change campaigner who advocates protecting the cruise industry from regulation?

    All climate change activists point their fingers at the most polluting nations and industries and demand that they act first but this does not mean that everyone else should wait in line until it's their turn to act. We need global action across the board to act in unison to transition to a sustainable world. Any solution that requires individuals to choose to make sacrifices will fail. It needs to be engineered into the economy so that individuals, acting in their own best interests, will pick the most sustainable option. This requires regulation and investment

    It is not about punishing individuals, it is about regulating industry and investing in a new infrastructure that allows people to make sustainable choices
    I didn't say anything about the science. I support the science. This is your Strawman fallacy. Not mine.
    The fact that you didn't say anything about the science is the point I am trying to make

    Climate change is real and the need to act is based on the science, not what any celebrity or politician happens to say about it

    Don't think I mentioned Di Caprio. Strawman fallacy.
    You mentioned a politician who flew somewhere to attend an event I'll leave it up to you to explain why that is relevant to this thread.
    I didn't say anything about the science of climate change, you inferred that. I merely suggested the first item on the agenda be banning private planes. You don't seem to agree. Can you make that position clear? You don't think they should be banned?
    I don't know where you inferred my position on private planes from.
    I personally would not lose a moment of sleep if it was announced that private jets were to be banned on the grounds that they are environmentally unsustainable. Or, more reasonably, a Euro NCAP style emissions requirement for all commercial and private Jets to force them to increase efficiency and/or reduce emissions.


    I would also quite like to have an announcement that all kerosene fuelled jet engines will be banned as of 2050 or some other target year. Because this would spark an immediate drive to engineer a carbon neutral alternative. Technology exists, just needs the investment to get it to market quickly
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20214-z


    I think there should be rationing of air travel (taxes that increase the more often someone travels by air) so that people are not prohibited from travelling, but people also do not create a lifestyle where they commute by jet on a regular basis.
    I also don't agree with carbon taxes on flights but have more radical solutions that would affect Kerry. But first private jets, ya or nay?
    The carbon taxes are levied on consumers, but really they're aimed at producers to drive them to use less polluting technologies. I don't particularly care if it's a carbon tax, or a regulation such as emissions standards, as long as it is evidence based and is shown that it can work to achieve the goal of transitioning aviation from a carbon heavy industry to a more sustainable model.

    If your ideology is pro-capitalist, then you should support carbon taxes because this is a market based approach. If you are more in favour of regulatory mechanics, then go with the banning/regulations approach


  • #2


    What a load of vacuous, long winded nonsense. People like you Arkrasia, which I think do genuinely means well, only serve to be the willing useful idiots on the ground for those people who really don't care about you or I at all.

    And your 'whataboutism' (a stupid argument in itself) nonsense serves no other purpose than to prove that point. In case you missed it, Kerry is a prominent climate activist in the world of politics, but that aside, you seemed to have missed completely what he actually said. This isn't just about him being a total hypocrite, which he, like most other climate activists are, but the implication that somehow his he is more entitled to the fruits of the world in which he and his ilk wish to deny others.

    Please stop defending these people.


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Tony Heller has been caught multiple times misrepresenting his sources and falsifying graphs

    It is not good enough to use Heller as a source and then say that Heller links to his sources.

    It is always preferable to link to the primary source for your evidence, not some bloggers interpretation of that data. Especially when those interpretations have ‘hidden data’ labels all over them

    Alex Jones references some of his sources too btw

    Just to be clear, this is the video I'm talking about. Maybe you've confused it with another. In it he talks about the one-pager of the National Climate Assessment. He quotes his sources in the video. I can't make it any clearer than that. If you won't watch the video then I'm not going to start writing out links for you.



  • #2


    Who are science’s frequent flyers? Climate researchers

    Survey finds climate scholars take more flights on average per year — but make greater effort to offset their emissions.


    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03000-1

    Clown world.


  • #2


    Why does that matter though? People being hypocrites doesn't mean climate change isn't a thing.


  • #2


    Why does that matter though? People being hypocrites doesn't mean climate change isn't a thing.

    Are you happy with people who have the ear of government advising stringent austerity on the populace whilst these measures have little or no effect on said advisers?

    "Do as I say, not as I do" is a term to describe these traits and actions.


  • #2


    Danno wrote: »
    Are you happy with people who have the ear of government advising stringent austerity on the populace whilst these measures have little or no effect on said advisers?

    "Do as I say, not as I do" is a term to describe these traits and actions.

    So you're not happy with the behaviour of the people who are delivering the message that things need to change, that's fair enough. But things still need to change regardless.
    For e.g. if Fine Gael are serious about the carbon taxes they introduced, why don't they get rid of the car park at the front of Leinster House and use public transport or cycle to work? Or at least pay for a private car park like the rest of us have to do.


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    'Full on climate changers' Aka every single credible scientific body on the planet?

    Climate change affects all of our weather, simply because weather is a chaotic phenomenon where any input has cascading affects on interactions across the system

    Climate change has already increased global average temperature by about 1c since pre-industrial times
    for context, the global average surface temperature was roughly 14c in the pre-industrial record, but it is about 15c now

    This is not a trivial increase and it doesn't even include the changes in ocean temperatures (which have a huge impact on weather and climate)

    The reason climatologists say we can expect more of x weather event in the future, is because that is what the climate models tell them is likely to happen. Climate is about trends and probabilities, without any climate change, a once in a century storm happens about once every hundred years, with climate change, it happens every 30 years, and as the world warms, what was once an extreme event can become 'normal' weather that we need to prepare for in the same way that hurricanes are normal in the gulf coast and tornados are 'normal' in the central plains of the US

    Pre-industrial temperatures correlated with the "Little Ice Age" and before that you had the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period.

    Today's Warm Period is only *slightly* warmer than both of those events. But the real question is: What caused these two warmer periods in the past as humans were not emitting C02 in quantities enough to trigger any measurable effects.

    Would it be fair to say that we are currently in a natural warm period and the slight increases measured today above what we know about the Medieval and Roman periods are caused by the extra C02 around today?

    Would it also be fair to propose that while we know the Medieval and Roman Periods were warm, we may have underestimated how warm these periods were?

    It is not unreasonable to enter these standpoints into the debate.


  • #2


    So you're not happy with the behaviour of the people who are delivering the message that things need to change, that's fair enough. But things still need to change regardless.
    For e.g. if Fine Gael are serious about the carbon taxes they introduced, why don't they get rid of the car park at the front of Leinster House and use public transport or cycle to work? Or at least pay for a private car park like the rest of us have to do.

    Because they don't give a f**k. Same with the Greens, all of them.

    They increase taxes on us, they give themselves pay rises enough or even above to outweigh how these tax increases effect themselves.


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    No it wouldn't, it would demonstrate that this person does not follow his own advice, but it wouldn't invalidate his arguments.

    Of course it invalidate his arguments since he is arguing that he can in fact keep trafficking. But I am generalising this to what the elites in general believe. Which is reduced consumption for me and no reduction for them. Green parties, as they now stand, are basically in tune with this. Carbon taxes tax the poor, who as we will see don't fly airplanes that much.
    Here the sex trafficking analogy only gets in the way of the argument, so i'll leave it aside.

    Agreed, from now on.
    All climate change activists point their fingers at the most polluting nations and industries and demand that they act first but this does not mean that everyone else should wait in line until it's their turn to act. We need global action across the board to act in unison to transition to a sustainable world. Any solution that requires individuals to choose to make sacrifices will fail. It needs to be engineered into the economy so that individuals, acting in their own best interests, will pick the most sustainable option. This requires regulation and investment

    Ok, but its all very well demanding the rich countries do most but what about the rich themselves? There are estimated 5 million people in China who are dollar millionaires. The average Joe in Ireland is closer to the average Joe in China than to a millionaire. There are people in Nigeria and most of the third world who are rich as well of course.

    We are either "all in this together" or we are not. I have looked around and I don't see much in in the Irish Green Party that would affect the head honcho at Google.

    I was reading a book set in the 50s by an English woman called Barbara Pym. In it life seems normal enough, and she doesn't mention rationing except obliquely where somebody says that they should come around to his place because he "had meat". Everybody in that food crisis -- with the exception of perhaps some aristocrats -- dealt with the shortage of food and meat not with a pricing mechanism but with a voucher system.

    In a guardian article a few years ago for the UK the stats on flying were.

    1% of the population took 10% of all flights
    20% of the population took 50% of all flights.
    47% of the population didn't fly that year.
    which leaves 33% percent of people taking the other 50% of flights.


    ( In carbon costs it is probably much much worse than that since the top 20% includes some private jet owners, and first class long hauls flyers, 50% of all flyers could well be 70% of all carbon emissions).

    We are close to the median population not flying in a given year. Nearly everybody has flown though, so probably a high percentage of the 33% of the total population that took the other 50% of flights in that year don't fly every year.


    A tax on the mostly flying every 2 years average Joe isn't going to do much to stop these emissions.

    A voucher system where you get to fly every two years short haul would work, and not affect the bottom 47% at all and have a slight effect on that percentage of next 30% of people who fly every year.

    So the head honcho of Google gets to fly once every two years and that's probably his own vacation. John Kerry, once every 2 years. The Pope, take the train buddy. Then with that in place we could try and build out better public transport.

    Screw carbon taxes.


  • #2


    FVP4 so the super wealthy should be paying way way way more tax so that their lives are in line with the rest of us normal folk. Flights is one thing but the same should be applied to large houses, large cars, everything that is bad for the environment.
    I'm in agreement with you here, but these very socialist ideas don't go down too well with a lot of people, especially those with all the power and money and influence.


  • #2


    I'm in agreement with you here, but these very socialist ideas don't go down too well with a lot of people, especially those with all the power and money and influence.

    Yet they are the ones preaching.


  • #2


    Just to be clear, this is the video I'm talking about. Maybe you've confused it with another. In it he talks about the one-pager of the National Climate Assessment. He quotes his sources in the video. I can't make it any clearer than that. If you won't watch the video then I'm not going to start writing out links for you.

    It is ironic that Heller's video is supposed to be all about 'hidden data' while his thumbnail contains a quote with the magic elipses ... that allows one to completely remove context from any quote
    https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227#back-register
    None of this sounds like the climate policy that we are familiar with.

    Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we still have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet - and we can only deposit 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11,000 to 400 - there is no way around the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.



    In fact, this is an expropriation of the countries with their natural resources. This leads to a completely different development than that which has been initiated with development policy up to now.

    First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the global community. But one must be clear: we are de facto redistributing world wealth through climate policy. It is obvious that the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about it. One has to get rid of the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. That has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dieback or the ozone hole.

    But aside from this, Heller's claims that the data is being deliberately cherrypicked are grossly exaggerated and in several cases, he is comparing totally different dataset and overlaying graphs on top of other graphs where the axis' do not line up properly

    His first claim, that heatwaves were worse in the 1930s therefore the current increase in heatwaves is not new completely ignores that the 1930s heatwaves were due to the Dustbowl, a man made event caused by excessive erosion of the topsoil due to terrible farming practises, the dustbowl amplified the naturally occuring heatwave at the time and led to the worst ecological disaster in US history

    There is a good justification for excluding the 1930s from that graph and focusing on the most recent trend

    The next graph he talks about is wildfires where again, he mixes up two datasets, one for total acres burned, and another for wildfires. They are not the same statistics so they cannot be directly compared

    Then he has the sea ice extent graphs where, once again, he compares incompatible datasets. He claims that 1979 is a cherrypicked starting point, but it's not, 1979 is widely considered the start of the satellite record for measuring sea ice. Before this date, while there were some satellite observations, they were not reliable or consistent, which is why the IPCC report showed huge error bars
    https://nsidc.org/nsidc-monthly-highlights/2018/10/modern-sea-ice-satellite-record-turns-40 Any data before 1979 cannot be overlayed with data from after 1979 for this erason.. Heller also chose to use a graph here that ended in 1990. guess what has happened since 1990 (31 years ago)

    He then talks about sea level changes, and the first thing he says is to mock the idea that sea level changes near the US would be different from anywhere else, which only goes to show how little he knows about it (sea levels vary by location, and Heller then goes and picks one location (New York) and tries to pretend that measurements from one location disproves the graph that shows the rise in sea levels across the entire US

    Heller just does what he always does, he mixes data up, misrepresents data, misunderstands basic concepts ,overlays graphs that are not compatible with each other, misquotes people and attributes intentions to deceive where there are perfectly acceptable reasons why data was selected other than the conspiracy theory that scientists are trying to falsify climate change

    Heller makes videos that he hosts on his own blog because no peer reviewed journal would accept his bullsh1t


  • #2


    Danno wrote: »
    Are you happy with people who have the ear of government advising stringent austerity on the populace whilst these measures have little or no effect on said advisers?

    "Do as I say, not as I do" is a term to describe these traits and actions.

    Climate change researchers are telling governments to impose stringent austerity? Since when?

    If anything, climate change campaigners are advocating ramping up government investment in order to speed up the transition to carbon neutrality

    And while most scientists do not have any professional opinion on government policies. the IPCC has a working group focused on mitigation, and in AR5, they spent a lot of time talking about equitable and fair policies that are not punitive and the need to bring people along through incentivising change rather than punishing bad behaviour

    Of course, you will always find individuals who advocate extreme austerity, but the mainstream view is that we need to be able to maintain quality of life while tackling climate change or else there will be too much resistance to any proposed changes


  • #2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    the IPCC has is a working group focused on mitigation

    Fixed your post.


Society & Culture