Climate science is to be broken into a three (3) prong thrust, in order to Stealman its relevance:
A) The science itself, weather records and climate models: (NASA List 01904)
Including avoidable errors; compounding confounds in cumulative data bundling, when small changes are a big deal; hosts of unanchored “averages”; prediction assumptions v weather record in all directions; showing data sets that inform each claim every step of the way side by side; consequence predictions nailed down w/ranges; mishandling of datasets; statistical error; known collection error not corrected; black body models w/o out items like cloud forcing etal – or switching midsentence on which data sets are to believed at this point in the paragraph/presentation; recording data poorly continuing; open about resetting of “records”; records pre climate unification; agreement on what records are official and why; ruling out ‘look so found’ spikes etal; water record laid against predictions – ongoing); “is this science or sad” – identifying emotional cons that do not strengthen scientific arguments; is infrastructure being upgraded/fixed post extreme events, let alone hardened – ever; are severe events both clinically+statistically significant or merely reported more, inaccurately auto paired to ClCh w/o walking through the arguments, and w/i normal variation; take apart pros/cons of sat/treering/trapd gas ice core/etal rcord & theory concerns; greenhouse experiments & non horrific models as/more credible; carbon sink mgt; recognizing “breaking records” is not an interesting piece of scientific data – unless we have the full record in both directions, and how the records are measured and kept is clearly explained
– & if it is true, as the simple chemistry indicates, that we can pull carbon from the air, wtf is anybody talking about anyway.
Also, the treating of dissent, as if they are all national security whistleblowers, and taking the most bizarre flat earth zealot and lumping them all together: is both strange and coordinated in nature. And effective. The chill on speaking out, or asking to see data is real. And speaks to a larger picture.
I am interested in Tidal Power, it seems to have the most promise: but I never encounter output numbers or costing. This review will be a priority. Solar power/battery does not appear to be viable. Wind similarly. And supplementation has grid integration problems. Geo-thermal seems unlikely in the extreme, however requires a review. Nuclear is viable, though re-use of waste and ultimate storage still require solutions. The only real problem for air quality is coal/oil. Fracking is also an additional net negative, as the lack of regulation will result in water (etal) contamination. Also, it simply is not required. Natural gas further appears manageable, though not the most desirable by far. There are more potent GH gas problems, methane, o3 and water particulate among them – but not only. Also smog problems remain. q necessity of full review. However, the “one person in a large firing squad” metaphor does hold. We don’t have to like it: it is as it is. And the reporting of records breaking, amounts of ice melting – always as means and without source, history or any context are either intentional, negligent – or the data is not available. But worst case it is too late, and still wouldn’t be a top 10 priority. You want to stop mass migration and crops failing – stop bombing may be higher on the list. If “life or death” there are adequate solutions with current technologies. Provided we protect the rain forest. We may lose the reefs. But again, there are a range of more threatening issue facing the reefs and oceans; some of which are likely skewing or being misread as “climate change”. This tastes like a scam, like every other business scam ever encountered. And if the worst data are taken as flawless: the situation still is not as bad as breathless reporters make it out to be, with only their facial expressions. Nuclear may be the cleanest, though there is the “non-proliferation” problem chiefly. Tidal is our chief blindspot. Beyond that, there is a piece we are missing in the whole puzzle. Carbon tax/credits isn’t the only oil company advantage (that also hurts people trying to keep their heat on, and who have to drive to work). There is something else. But, pretending that were not the case; Steelman:-
B) Plausible political will:
Are there items evidenced where regulations on corporations poisoning air/water etal in real time being criminally enforced; are there corporations (eg Amazon, Apple etal f500) made to pay tax at all – as well as fines; are Fines being used to fix problems or disappearing into gvts; Are items like refugees from drought motivating in the same way refugees from Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, periodic whole countries in Africa, sthAmerica etal – are not? Is the evidence really that this is top of the pile ahead of ppl suffering now, or is it closer to the truth most ppl fear statistical mathematics and dont know what models are; oil in every product, & we’re the no1 producer – problem?; if told the honest truth, rather than statistical worst case scenarios – are people too stupid to receive that responsibly and still expect action to protect food, air, env+water; are we going to take hardening action using foreign aid for moderate climate effect protection when we dont fix our infrastructure in our own home now; is action expected even in this hysteria, and would ppl who do not understand the basic concepts even know if they achieved it?
C) International enforcement:
Is there enforceable international law for any country or corporate activity; Are we willing to go to war over this; Are we going to compel the ceasing of meat in diets as a primary food source; If it is true the US military accounts for 1/3 of the global ftprint for carbon alone, is this going away – or is the entire climate change movement, w/clear eyes, effectively only focused on making the less fortunate suffer; can we tell other countries what to do reliably while they develop; are we giving nuclear technology to those who do not have it; who will pay for renewable infrastructure, and is it feasible for energy needs; where is this battery that stores solar well and doesnt explode, or etal not work, and is it resource mass producible; How much stable or increasing temp+related ‘change’ [exactly] would be ‘enough’ change, in either direction, under any model that would be serious enough to warrant any behavior change on this scale; Is that risk v risks inherent in these changes a trade-off worth it.
Ed Nb:- & is it not worthwhile to use this unification to force needed green policy enforcement even if the science is not that applicable? Also is there any point taking apart all of the science, if no one will read that – just like they dont read the science now.
Praxis nbs:- Email Post Network
Great to meet you last night! I believe easily…oh, I don’t know, about 1/3 of what I say in public?
But there are real climate deniers out there. And having answers to their questions can be an important part of science communication.
It is a wonderful thing, if you still have full access to the **full IPCC reports and plenaries** from your time with working group 3.
And if you do have access to some of the IPCC **raw data** in a single click, or even just full papers **including the methods sections** (*no solo abstracts): that would be great. I have had a lot of trouble actively investigating this. Largely because of uncritical stonewalling from IPCC participants.
Similarly, any solar power (and other alternate) **scalable battery** and grid integration technology, that matches the infrastructure demands – compared directly w/the same “hidden costs” that one sees in nuclear (*mining and waste disposal, for example). These are topics of interest that come up.
The costs of setting up scalable solar power is not impact neutral either, I suspect you will agree. And those data really need to be side by side, for any coherent views, on what is colloquially now called “climate change action”, can be formed. Your points on “hidden costs”, and I’ll add scalability again, I think are particularly relevant. For all interventions suggested.
Battery disposal, or re-usability, and grid integration are also interesting research questions. One’s that I would find benefit in knowing the existing solutions for. (*Again, proof of concept with scalability: and **no stand alone abstracts** or appeals to authority with no data to show for it).
And less formally, if you know off the top of your head (ie just your informed opinion), I would like to pick your brain on a couple of items.
Particularly around the [comparative, full] cost of nuclear power; the availability of uranium and other materials v similar for solar infrastructure; as well as any programs to reuse spent fuel (nuclear) wastes; and ways to store ‘true’ waste that may be environmentally sound, at least as relating to climate change concerns.
If you’ve studied much rhetoric and logic (which I am fairly certain you have), to suffice is to say I am *vastly* not impressed by, even good faith, “cons from authority” (eg ‘I worked for IPCC working group x’) as arguments in themselves. Although I am certain you have had large success with this in
the past. I am equally unimpressed by mobs of people repeating news sound bites without context or citation.
That is to say, if you send me anything from the IPCC – don’t tell me that is where it is from, as a form of argument. Remember:- it is not about ‘wining an argument’, we are trying to ‘save the world’.
So give me the best you have, absolutely. I would like the entries that are considered scientifically beyond reproach.
Just **include the methods** and I’ll evaluate the work independently. And if things are conspicuously missing from the methodology – especially items that best not be, aren’t explained, and are easily fixable – I’ll bring them to your attention, to follow up with the authors. See if you have better luck with your contacts, than I have had with mine.
I know it is a sensitive topic, when one takes “climate science” as a form of identity, rather than a set of scientific practices they engage in.
And on a personal note, it was awesome to meet you last night ☺! I mean that. I am a far more serious fellow than I appear. Especially than I appear online. >>
Science is slow. It is OK to critically deconstruct every aspect of a scientific study – and *STILL* be proud of whatever remains. In fact: it is essential.
Of course, if you’d prefer to just leave it light, I’m cynical enough to be fine with that too. I mean it is a lot of effort. And it is only the end of the world, right?
Maybe we could cosplay as anime characters at a comicon or something instead? Or as well! And no rush.
Till next conference.
Praxis nbs: On ‘the Agenda’
“”does not have the homogeneous composition required to make that assertion” to talk in averages of global climate…yep. why do you know more about this? i bet you study in a corner of this field.
tho it is not positive feedback, exactly. that is your time scale problem. It is both, it is a switch. that is why it wont ever be the end (even if the carbon cycle is tightened). & warm water leading to deadlier hurricanes every yr…well, idk how deadly the ones not on land are, but even that aside, we dont have to use climate models for past weather: there are not more frequent or powerful hurricanes *(tho also different model assumptions predict frequent or severe; there is not a posited one, even by the IPCC , that gives both).
Anyway, storms havent changed. Technically fewer on USA mainland, but statistically not a change. Just as these werent the worst fires in 1000 years either. remind me – what was America doing 1k yrs ago? what was calif called? how are the native American fire records? Was it always this densely populated? Also, they tend to be started by ppl in the end, ever notice that? Everything is awful. Deregulation, and regulation non enforcement, are the clear problems.
What has changed is reporting on everything as CC. Like you see w/popular medical diagnoses in “explosions” of disorders that have a well marketed treatment, or epidemics that garner political attn. & you see a lot of mixing emotion. as if the more people that die in a storm or fire, the better the science gets.
All to point away from the obvious: infrastructure. Cutting regulations, and defunding federal land, means they arent being preped for fire in the ever growing more densely populated regions, year by year. Not building the backup dams from the original town plan designs, nor repairing damage from the last flood, means each following one is going to do more damage. That is what deregulation does.
I support climate change as it has momentum. Do you think they will regulate Google & Amazon, & the conglomerates in oil/gas/chemical, that the associated consortium represent, to stop them poisoning the air or dumping directly onto our reefs? Do you think they will harden (*coff* upkeep *coff*) infrastructure for storms if we dont make it life or death ingroup sexy-dangerous/intellect vs outgroup/dumb?
Ive come to the conclusion that science cant be taught. a type of person goes into science. & ppl really do vote against their interests for ingroup stickers and slogans. idk what is wrong w/(what appears to be) the majority of people, and a swath of the scientifically literate as well. Why they are fine not to question anything. And i no longer care.
Hank greenlit CCStats – that was my last idea w/hope. & Ppl wont sit still for 10mins either. bc they dont want to understand what is going on. & for most scientists – it is not their day job enough to get in the middle of it. But clean water, air you can breathe, regulations (w/teeth) for transparency and stopping tax dodging and wholesale dumping of chemicals, and not fixing pipeline leaks bc it is ‘in budget’ to leave them: climate change galvanizes ppl. they know what to paint on their signs, for issues they wont vote/protest about individually.
It doesnt matter if it is “real” or not. the list of environmental problems is long, and each independent, w/varying levels of evidence. and you cant pass policy or focus political will like that. it will fatigue! just like future refugee saving makes you a good person, under climate change, but the real largest refugee crisis in hx: that isnt really ppls ‘bag’ is it? but climate change! all the internal reward for helping, none of the effort. but maybe genuine impact.
To unify against one force, that covers it all, in “climate change” – that is str8 out of the FM. you want money restricted in politics? you want regulations actually enforced? you want idiots who talk about things like the ‘free market’, and misquoted out of context ‘invisible hands’, having those hands tied – this is it.
You cant teach science. so you go w/what works. & it doesnt even matter if you tell ‘them’ to their face – that is the agenda. bc it is. & i support it. Being scientifically honest & accurate doesnt matter. it rarely does.”
JC-R is the research methodologies & national security investigator for the chronicleLS. JC-R completed graduate training in intelligence analysis, as well as pure methods and statistical modeling. JC-R further completed the Harvard extension program in climate science and the MIT program in climate modelling in 2018.
JC-R writes the “CounterPoint Steelman” column for ASQ: Presenting the best arguments, of the least popular positions, for rebuttable in the same issue.
JC-R is the research error and academic malpractice investigator for Letters and Science.
Prof Freeman Dyson – Mathematical Modeling/Physics (Cornell/Oxford/Princeton): Short Interviews  & On Hysteria @ Yale.