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

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

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

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkXZ3_ZmKzw

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.

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.

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?

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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?

Arturo Delgado wrote: »

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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

Akrasia wrote: »

the IPCC has is a working group focused on mitigation

Fixed your post.