Climate Strike September 20

[Dallas Tex]

This is a pernicious myth, repeated ad nauseum that completely mischaracterizes science, scientific method, and a means by which difficult-to-understand, complex concepts are hijacked and simplified for popular consumption. While there may have been a some limited understanding that global ice maximums may, at some point in the future, approach historical latitudes, nobody was suggesting that this was likely to happen any time soon, and may be a "cycle" that will repeat hundreds of thousands of years in the future. Climate science was in its infancy in the 1950's through the 1970's without serious computing power, which now is much more available. It was never a "consensus" among climatologists to begin with, contrary to ill-informed journalism suggesting otherwise. Don't take my word for it. Ask any climatologist.

The "those ivory tower eggheads, what do they know" approach is a weak argument in the face of overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic contributions to climate change. It would be like saying that Newton's understanding of gravity was completely wrong, so why should we trust contemporary understandings of gravity (even though those contemporary understandings have allowed for precise measurements of various phenomena as well as interplanetary travel for which Newtonian physics could never allow). Contemporary understandings of climate change may be off to **some** degree, but to point to historical misunderstandings (even if these are wildly mischaracterized, which they are) as a rationale for willfull ignorance of current science is completely illogical.

The logic of this is, frankly, inane.

My logic is more of a critique of the “it can’t be not true” attitudes. “ Everyone that earns a living by studying it says it’s true, it’s gotta be true”. “It couldn’t be wrong so don’t dare question it.”

But don’t listen to me, as far as I know the world has been getting warmer since the last ice age.

[EDS]

Perhaps irony was the wrong word. But I believe you know what I was tying to say.

But to Davids point, lets get back on track.

What can we do about this oncoming apocalypse? What makes sense in the real world?

1. Protect green spaces (i.e., wilderness, forests and undeveloped land)
2. Do our very best to limit dangerous emissions from cars, factories, farming, industry, etc.
3. Do our very best to limit pollution (i.e., dumping/releasing chemicals into oceans, rivers and groundwater, use of and reliance on plastics and other non biodegradable materials, etc.).
4. Invest in clean energy - wind, solar, etc.
5. Commit to leaving our children a planet in better shape than the one we inherited.
6. Elect leader who believe in all of the above.

I fully understand that the above involves an economic cost and I also fully understand we cannot solve all these problems without economic sacrifice. I think we need to bit the economic bullet to some degree to make a dent. In other words, we need to start somewhere.

I do not believe the current leadership in the U.S. congress or executive branch is committed to any of the above.

[ericpmoss]

Bernie Sanders' Green New Deal is the ticket to solving this. AOC's was just a non-binding resolution of intent, but Bernie's puts the pedal to the metal. Just one paragraph of over a hundred projects dedicates us to a state-of-the-art adaptive buried HVDC grid. Another commits to a second high voltage EV charging grid. Another commits to replacing substandard and inefficient housing with efficient modular homes. Another to retro-insulating every building that can be upgraded. Another to be the #1 producer of solar and wind electricity to feed the new grid and replace every gas and diesel engine as technology permits. Another to bring us up to par and surpass both Japan and China with rail technology. Another commits to agriculture not dominated by artificial fertilizer and toxics. And on and on. Basically it's everything I have ever thought should be done x 5.

[guido]

Spin wash repeat. Guido my friend, you need new material.

Open your mind and consider this: Why would the country ELECT a non-politician who never ran for any other office to the Presidency?

Because, A: they didn't like the last guy and B: they didn't like the other option.

I had this vision of you and a grandchild hanging on to a piece of floating wreckage after the tidal waves hit the north shore. The child asks "Grandpa Corso why did your generation let this happen?" and you reply "Benghazi!"

[monadnocky]

My logic is more of a critique of the “it can’t be not true” attitudes. “ Everyone that earns a living by studying it says it’s true, it’s gotta be true”. “It couldn’t be wrong so don’t dare question it.”

But don’t listen to me, as far as I know the world has been getting warmer since the last ice age.

It has indeed. But that's not an argument against what is occurring now.

Your doctor earns a living by doctoring. You wouldn't not believe her if she said that there is a very high likelihood that you have strep throat. You wouldn't say "well, medicine has been wrong in the past - even quackery - so I'm going to question your diagnosis... and, besides, you get paid to make me think there's something wrong with me."

Your engineer earns a living by engineering. You wouldn't say to him that, historically, construction methods have been shoddy (and in fact have resulted in some significant catastrophes), so why should you trust his recommendation that this beam is enough to hold up this roof?

I earn a living by studying and practicing clinical psychology. If I told you that I was reasonably confident, as evidenced by tests and clinical opinion, that your child has a learning disability, you would likely not tell me that Freud was a quack, ipso facto my diagnosis is questionable (and, besides I get paid to diagnose, so that implies... well, something shady, right?)

You make a living by doing what you do; presumably, you have more expertise that I in whatever this is (if it is making bike frames, a LOT more expertise). I would generally trust your expertise in this area, and not bring this expertise into question because you make a living by doing it, or pointing out historical missteps in your field as some type of evidence of your incompetence (or, even worse, maleficence.)

We make these heuristics every day in so many ways. But when it comes to the expert opinion of climate scientists, hey, we should question it! I mean, it could be wrong, since they have been in the past, and, besides, they get PAID to be climate scientists!

Yes. They could be wrong. But at this point that looks extremely unlikely and the risks of not acting are unfathomable.

[Dallas Tex]

We make these heuristics every day in so many ways. But when it comes to the expert opinion of climate scientists, hey, we should question it! I mean, it could be wrong, since they have been in the past, and, besides, they get PAID to be climate scientists!
.

You seem to miss my point entirely. Someone getting paid to repair a car or paint a house doesn’t have kowtow to the to the prescribed orthodoxy or risk not getting paid. And if you think research science is somehow the only area of human endeavor that is somehow immune to the influence of money, we may have to not agree.

And again, please don’t misunderstand me, I have no idea if human activity is changing the climate in a way detrimental to life on our planet. Maybe it is? Maybe it’s not. I don’t know, and neither do you.

The concept of just accept the orthodoxy, it has to be correct is scary. The unquestioned obedience to liberal orthodoxy concerns me far more than ‘climate change’.

[guido]

Science does have that liberal bias...

[guido]

Greta Thunberg Is the Anti-Trump | The New Yorker

[monadnocky]

You seem to miss my point entirely. Someone getting paid to repair a car or paint a house doesn’t have kowtow to the to the prescribed orthodoxy or risk not getting paid. And if you think research science is somehow the only area of human endeavor that is somehow immune to the influence of money, we may have to not agree.

And again, please don’t misunderstand me, I have no idea if human activity is changing the climate in a way detrimental to life on our planet. Maybe it is? Maybe it’s not. I don’t know, and neither do you.

The concept of just accept the orthodoxy, it has to be correct is scary. The unquestioned obedience to liberal orthodoxy concerns me far more than ‘climate change’.

Science is certainly not immune to the influence of money, nor from prescribed orthodoxies (although, in my experience, studies that refute generally agreed-upon phenomena are quick to be published). But that's not a cogent argument for rejecting an accumulated body of research. Medical research is filthy with money; that doesn't mean that the results are invalid. Certainly to be questioned, yes, but at some point we accept accumulated evidence as likely reflective of some larger truth.

The "I don't know and neither do you" is a solipsistic epistemology that has made inroads in the public discourse over the past few decades, to the point that some people in the public eye have begun to reject bedrock principles of science because they cannot perceive it with their own senses. Think of those NBA'ers who truly believe the earth is flat because their senses do not suggest otherwise. It's crazy, but understandable I guess.

In this matter you are correct, in a sense - I don't "know" that human activity is changing the climate, in the same way that I don't "know" this pencil is made of atoms, or "know" that I have a liver in my body. It's really more of a philosophical way of asking how we "know" anything that cannot be immediately sensed. For me, in this matter, my "knowing" is based on a heuristic that I've trusted in the past (and has generally worked pretty well for me).

I know I've discussed this in a previous post so I won't belabor the point here. I think we just have different epistemologies when it comes to how we "know" what we know.

[davids]

Stop with the fatalism. We can stop global warming but as a society we have to decide to make the sacrifices to do so. It's the role of government to put in place a regulatory structure that encourages the wanted behaviors and discourages the unwanted behaviors. I get that you're a free-market libertarian type so you're going to disagree with me on this point, but the free market is absolutely terrible at correcting for negative externalities like pollution. It didn't work in the 60's when prior to the EPA existing the river that runs by my house would catch on fire on a semi-regular basis. It doesn't work now that my backyard is uninhabitable for most of the summer.

Yes, individuals can do stuff to limit their carbon footprint on their own but there's a lower limit they can't really dip below without structural reforms at the state and federal level.

This resonates for me.

I truly don't understand those who treat The Free Market as if it is some moral force, something God-like it its infallibility. For all of the accusations made towards the scientific community's supposed bias in studying the climate (because you know there's massive money behind the environmental movement, so much more than behind the energy industry, for example.) (That was sarcasm.) no one here is pointing out the deep wells of cash pushing this demonstrably false idea.

So I will: The Free Market is an imperfect instrument. To the extent it works, it has no role in controlling effects outside of the marketplace. None.

Yep, I'm a capitalist and I see the power of a free, low-friction marketplace for setting prices, driving demand, satisfying buyers' desires, and for producing a reasonable return for producers.

But I'm also a Marxist, insofar as his critique of capital show deep insight into where value can be disinfranchised from the people doing the production. And Marx was only one guy who's worked on this subject: There's volume upon volume upon volume upon volume of analyses of the shortcomings of the free market, and how it does not serve the greater goals of a broader society. That is not the Free Market's job. Duh.

So it falls to governments to limit and shape the marketplace, to create incentives that will favor broader social goals and barriers that will limit or prevent social ills. It's one of government's most powerful tools.

I'll just offer one example, hopefully one that's not too controversial or radical: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts subsidizes public transportation, and is increasing those subsidies in recognition of the need for more better public transportation. We appear to have reached the consensus that this is a good thing for us. It will remove congestion from our roads, make it easier for residents to travel in the Boston area, attract more businesses and reduce pollution.

[monadnocky]

There's volume upon volume upon volume upon volume of analyses of the shortcomings of the free market, and how it does not serve the greater goals of a broader society....

Health care and education, for instance.

[guido]

If the free market really was "free" there would be much less of a problem. But there has been so much manipulation of the markets in favor of dirty fuel sources for over 100 years, paving highways, restricting railroads, favoring extraction industries etc., it is way beyond what can be achieved without strong direct government oversight.

[vertical_doug]

My logic is more of a critique of the “it can’t be not true” attitudes. “ Everyone that earns a living by studying it says it’s true, it’s gotta be true”. “It couldn’t be wrong so don’t dare question it.”

But don’t listen to me, as far as I know the world has been getting warmer since the last ice age.

I don't think this is the case. Science is never static and theories are always progressing. When the data supports the claim, the scientific community can relatively quickly reverse course. In 1998, two Supernova research projects came to the conclusion the universe was not only expanding (long accepted) but the expansion was accelerating. (turned physics on its head because accepted wisdom was gravity should be slowing the expansion ).

So maybe 'it can't be not true' attitude is with the laymen, but with the true research experts, they are looking at the data and questioning it all the time. Without doing this, they can never progress the theory.

If current theories on climate change are wrong, the research teams that changes the understanding are going to be scientific super stars. For example, the teams that discovered the accelerating expansion, 3 have been award nobel prizes. That's the real nerd street cred.

[djg714]

Even if someone doesn't believe in global warming, we can agree something can be done about the quality of water, air and the oceans.

[Dallas Tex]

I don't think this is the case. Science is never static and theories are always progressing. When the data supports the claim, the scientific community can relatively quickly reverse course. In 1998, two Supernova research projects came to the conclusion the universe was not only expanding (long accepted) but the expansion was accelerating. (turned physics on its head because accepted wisdom was gravity should be slowing the expansion ).

So maybe 'it can't be not true' attitude is with the laymen, but with the true research experts, they are looking at the data and questioning it all the time. Without doing this, they can never progress the theory.

If current theories on climate change are wrong, the research teams that changes the understanding are going to be scientific super stars. For example, the teams that discovered the accelerating expansion, 3 have been award nobel prizes. That's the real nerd street cred.

I like your post. thanks for posting it.

My area of concern is that the 'rate of universe expansion' isn't a political charged topic. I don't hear many proclaiming that universe expansion rate is 'settled science' whatever that means. I'd have to think getting a research grant and the cooperation of research facilities and even staffing would be much easier for 'expansion rate' research as opposed to challenging even a minor aspect of climate change.

I can't imagine a University or a research facility or many scientists would want to endure the 'mocking' that has become such a powerful tool of the left in the social media age. A university or independent researchers may not want to risk their donors reputations, and the donors may be laymen to use your term. In our new world, organizations regularly cutoff relationships immediately at the first scent of 'stink'.

[mzilliox]

I know we have caused warming. im not going to beat around the bush.

the river i live on, as people have cut the trees for lawns, it has warmed. the town 9 miles away is always hotter then where i live rurally, because its paved. the evidence is all over if you wish to have a look around. those of us who have spent 95% of our waking hours outside know we have warmed the planet. and we havent just warmed the thing, we have completely altered it for the worse. we have created deserts. we could undo them too with some cleverness.

but the most telling, we have cut down so many trees man. so many trees. you ever been around a bunch of trees? kinda cool huh? its almost like they make weather(they do).

so yeah, im as confident as a person can be. i am as confident we are warming the planet as i am that you guys like bikes.

[moondog-sparky]

1. Protect green spaces (i.e., wilderness, forests and undeveloped land)
2. Do our very best to limit dangerous emissions from cars, factories, farming, industry, etc.
3. Do our very best to limit pollution (i.e., dumping/releasing chemicals into oceans, rivers and groundwater, use of and reliance on plastics and other non biodegradable materials, etc.).
4. Invest in clean energy - wind, solar, etc.
5. Commit to leaving our children a planet in better shape than the one we inherited.
6. Elect leader who believe in all of the above.

I fully understand that the above involves an economic cost and I also fully understand we cannot solve all these problems without economic sacrifice. I think we need to bit the economic bullet to some degree to make a dent. In other words, we need to start somewhere.

I do not believe the current leadership in the U.S. congress or executive branch is committed to any of the above.

i'll wade in here...full disclosure, my background is geology / geophysics and i work in oil and gas.
i fall in the camp that recognizes climate change is happening, but am unsure as to what degree this is specifically driven by man vs natural changes / processes that have occurred on our planet over several billion years. i DO believe we're not helping things slow down or even revert back, but can't say with any certainty that any corrective actions we take now will change the outcome. not a fatalist - just a realist that looks at the bigger picture of human nature and our general hubris and unwillingness to make massive sacrifices for the collective good. how do we in the US who live a great life and hacked up our country and resources to get there, go abroad and preach to others - many of whom are simply trying to claw their way out of poverty and short lifespans? and who could, quite frankly, as every day for them can be a matter of survival, give two shakes and a shit about climate change?

looking at the above list of potential solutions, and the discussion of how to reverse the change in general, one thing that always amazes me is this: the lack of emphasis on population growth control. much like soylent green...it's people. let's say for our collective good we all come together and drop our emissions by 50% in the next week (yeah for magic!). within ~65 years we will double the planet's population and we will be roughly back in the same spot. of course, during that time period i recognize we would get even more efficient with reducing carbon emissions and being enviro friendly, but you see where i'm going - at some point, the sheer number of us and how rapidly we're adding more of us will overwhelm whatever reductions we make. especially, since everyone is trying to maximize their enjoyment of life...which comes at a price in and of itself. soooo, when do we discuss population control, given that the science says this is all man-made? if it really is us, how do we um, limit us?

people are people. no matter how altruistic we all sound behind our keyboards, at some point in the scheme of cutting and/or stopping things that contribute to carbon emissions we will all hit a point where we say, "no - i'm not giving that up". would we really all give up AC? travel to exotic locales? heck, just stop travel to our local fun spots like snow skiing, local lakes for water skiing? stop eating meat...? going to a movie theater or a nice luxurious, expensive dinner? want that great wine from France? local farming, farm to table, renewable energy sources, wise development of space, etc are all things i like/promote/enjoy - but is that approach really going to provide what is required for billions of us globally?

i saw a podcast a few weeks ago - sorry can't find the link - but it featured a prominent enviro-warrior who had long championed wind and solar energy. but, over time, he began to see that the infrastructure, cost - and more importantly the land surface area - required to generate the necessary energy we want/need/use from wind and solar was simply not sustainable. to be clear, he was not saying they don't work - but if you look at the amount of physical space needed to layout wind farms and solar to get what we want it was staggering. the installation of these forms of renewables would have devastating impact on the local environment in terms of deforestation, erosion, habitat cutting, etc. his conclusion, and i'm onboard with this and it is another thing that doesn't get raised often enough along with population, is nuclear energy is really the best solution at this time. if in fact we are 100% doomed to life-altering climate on this planet, then the <1% risk from a nuclear plant failing seems like a good trade off to me. if we could all get over our NIMBY approach on this issue and find a way to accelerate the approval / build cycle for these plants - while still maintaining safety, of course - i suspect this could dramatically reshape this discussion and drop emissions in a huge way.

i fly out to Midland all the time, and as a person in oil and gas, it is humbling to see the patchwork of frac pads littering the landscape - no, moonscape - of that part of TX. and i can't imagine that vast solar and wind farms, while more environmentally friendly in terms of emissions - are any better in terms of altering the physical landscape and destroying the surface.

i realize i may - will? - be judged for admitting i'm in oil and gas and that i have not been noble enough to step away from this industry. all i can say is...i'm a realist when it comes to energy use and the voracious demand of people.

[Blue Jays]

"...Even if someone doesn't believe in global warming, we can agree something can be done about the quality of water, air and the oceans..."

Agreed. My anticipation is VSalonistas consistently demonstrate love, care, and respect for the environment.
My additional belief is that our same group of VSalonistas instinctively embrace conservation techniques daily.

[Dallas Tex]

Even if someone doesn't believe in global warming, we can agree something can be done about the quality of water, air and the oceans.

I believe that the globe is getting warmer. Improving the air, water, oceans are great goals.

I haven't driven to the grocery store in years, I walk. I can't remember the last time i used a disposable plastic grocery bag. I often can go for a week or more without starting my car. I use vinegar to clean nearly everything instead of harsh chemicals. I'm lucky to live in a place where weather makes a bike the best choice for many short trips. I've got bike-friendly light rail 5 minutes from my home making mid distance trips easy. I haven't driven a car or taken an uber to the airport in a long time. blah blah blah.

Having the audacity to question and challenge the orthodoxy should be welcomed not discouraged, especially by many folks that have to drive a car down the driveway just to pick of their mail. No amount of 'likes' on facebook offset a lifestyle that requires a car to do everything from a remote, exclusive, exclusionary town. That's a general statement, definitely not directed you.

Point being, don't think that someone that challenges some accepted orthodoxy is against the goal of making the world a better place.

[Matthew Strongin]

I believe in the globe is getting warmer. Improving the air, water, oceans is a great goal.

I haven't driven to the grocery store in years, I walk. I can't remember the last time i used a disposable plastic grocery bag. I often can go for a week or more without starting my car. I use vinegar to clean nearly everything instead of harsh chemicals. I'm lucky to live in a place where weather makes a bike the best choice for many short trips. I've got bike-friendly light rail 5 minutes from my home making mid distance trips easy. I haven't driven a car or taken an uber to the airport in a long time. blah blah blah.

Having the audacity to question and challenge the orthodoxy should be welcomed not discouraged, especially by many folks that have to drive a car down the driveway just to pick of their mail. No amount of 'likes' on facebook offset a lifestyle that requires a car to do everything from a remote, exclusive, exclusionary town. That's a general statement, definitely not directed you.

Point being don't think that someone that challenges some accepted orthodoxy is against the goal of making the world a better place.

I think part of what you're touching on is the fact that there are many imperfect messengers and in this social media darling era we now find ourselves it's easy for people to take the easy step of calling for environmentally friendly change without needing to walk the walk. A gaggle of billionaires flying from around the world on private jets for a summit so they can wag their fingers at everyone is just as distasteful to someone with views like mine as it is to someone with views like yours.