The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Their conservative trends seem agreeable on this latest report.
Right now I'm reading their latest 1170 page report right now.
Lots of cherry picking, some invalid sample sizes and a little hyperbole that the retards like AOC blow way out of proportion.
No one saying anything that would indicate the planet will be much more hostile even going out 300 years even with the cherry picking.

Something to consider.In order to get a report together for publishing,there's a cut-off date,after which no new information can be accepted.This has meant up to 24-months in the past,making the published data obsolete on the day it's released.
Also,the IPCC has a 'range' of outcomes,predicated upon percentages of probability.Unless,as you are doing,reading the entire manuscript,most will be unaware for instance,that there's a higher likelihood that the average global temperature increase will reach 11-degrees F(4-C) by 2100,than you'll be involved in a traffic accident,or your home catching fire.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The IPCC is trying to pass cherry picked 9 year time frames as "climate change".
The more liberal definitions of climate change i can find say climate change is what takes place over decades, not less than a decade.
Their words, not mine.
I just said I agree with their trends. How is that a being a denier?

The statistical analysis and resolution of the trend lines can allow any extrapolation or interpolation within the model's temporal boundaries as one likes.That's what they're for.
With Katrinas,and Michaels,and Sandy's,and the like,this ability is more important to near-term planning than ever before.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Lehman Brothers went belly up in November,2008.They,and I believe,Nate Hagans would be characterized at 'freshwater' economists.They're the laissez-faire,free-market liberalists who nearly melted down the entire global economy in 2008,costing US taxpayers $10-trillion as of 2009.Their 'Efficient Financial Markets Hypothesis' was predicated upon conditions which never existed in the real world,and are structurally impossible to exist.The very theory behind it revealed the inherent paradox,and oxymoronish nature of it's very premise.
I don't believe Nate Hagans knows anything but free market liberalism,which,as far as I'm concerned makes him an enemy of mankind.There's a lot of things he knows nothing about ,which makes him very dangerous.

You have some very inaccurate presumptions and prejudices against Hagens since day one of your exposure to him which quickly degraded to rather vicious name calling against him and me. In my analysis it appears to be the result of the dissonance caused by one of his tenets which is that energy underpins most modern human activity and our access to net energy going forward will start to inexorably decline. This is a shock for techno-optimists to learn about so they attack the message and the man.
.
Your statement above is so far off the mark I must try to clarify the facts once again as they pertain to Nate Hagens. He was a High School kid when he had to choose a secondary education major, as many people do while they are still young and inexperienced, and finance seemed like a good opportunity at the time. He is brilliant and so was able to graduate Masters with Honors at U. Chicago and rise straight to the top of Wall Street. A young graduate pursuing the American Dream just as he had been told. But while earning $.5 million/ year managing money for billionaires, he started to notice some things that made him think twice. 1. The rich people were generally miserable much of the time. 2. Big consumption was wrecking the planet.
.
So he walked away from his Wall Street job in 2000 and backpacked with his dog from a parked car for two years to read and study what to do next. He went back to school at U. Vermont to get his PHD in the synthesis view of energy/ economy/ ecology/ resource depletion/ human behavior, and has been since 2007 teaching and writing to save the future for $50,000/ year.
.
Practice Metacognition. Become aware of hijacking by modern supernormal stimuli and dopamine manipulation. Make the normal, super to reset your hedonic ratchet. Avoid confirmation bias and consensus trance. See the World through nonrenewable energy/ resource lenses. Humans and our livestock now outweigh wild land animals 50:1. Adopt some endangered species other than our own. Wake to the mass extinction event that has begun.Promote for a resilient society. Learn. Think. Talk. Steer the conversation for better outcomes.
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysgx...FD7zzhnozJUsBV

.

[redpoint5]

I'll throw in that part of the so-called laissez-faire failing is due to a non-laissez-faire system. Privatizing profits and socializing losses is not laissez-faire.

That isn't to say laissez-faire is without faults, or that we should strive for a completely laissez-faire system, but combining the worst aspects of both a free market and socialization delivers sub-optimal results. Just look at the cost of our healthcare system. In that regard, I'd rather have a completely socialized system than what we've got. People going to the ER with the sniffles with no intention of paying the bill is a misuse of an important health service, and that's incentivized by our insane hybrid system of corruption.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I learned. I started reading ipcc reports because I'm just a stoopid denier.
Then asked the legitimate question of why they think the world is ending based on these reports.
It's like the ipcc and the cult are speaking different languages.
My conclusion is ipcc says "A", the cultists read it or I'm starting to think they just hit "control F" to find what they want to see, so they end up reading "B" then go around telling people "C".
But "A" and "C" have nothing to do with each other.
I'm still reading the latest 1,170 page report.
It's going to take a while.
Actually I'll skip to the last 20 or 30 pages to see if that's where it says the world is ending. But I do plan on reading it all.
Notice how they haven't had any responses directory quoting segments of the report. They will take like 1 or 2 sentences way out of context, quote those and try to blow them out of proportion for all their worth.

I think the cult has over played their hand, everyone knows it and they are going for broke.
Now I'm convinced if people read the ipcc reports them selves that is the worst thing that could happen, then it over for the cult.

If you'll tough it out,you'll get to the alternate scenarios.They have less statistical probability of happening,but it's not zero.We're seeing 'black swans' more often and people are having to consider realities unimaginable only a few years ago.
We could have averted the Global Economic Crisis of 2008,if Brooksley Born hadn't been attacked by Alan Greenspan in 1999.
Jim Hansen could be the Brookesly Born of climate change.He has one of the highest coefficients of perspicacity I've ever experienced.Like a scout,spy plane,spy satellite,sentinel,sentry,listening post,Cheyenne Mountain,early warning system,one-man reconnaissance mission,plus interpreter,analyst;he's been watching all our backs for decades.I think it's a mistake and great folly to disrespect and turn a deaf ear to these watchers.

[freebeard]

Just block them like I did. Like a fire they'll get more active if you give them air.
...
Don't fight the abusive, ignore them.

If you block people everyone else is talking to the walls.

litesong [self-referentially] wrote:
In my unadulterated enthusiasm for Greta, I did NOT add my contempt for AGW deniers. I did NOT want to harmonize with her, detracting from her clangorous criticism of us old farts.

It's good to adopt polite discourse. Extra points for 'clangorous'.

Consider [scary stuff].
In this context,or caveat,A.O.C.is speaking very reasonably.

You left out Giant Meteor.

Jim Hansen could be the [somebody] of climate change.He has one of the highest coefficients of perspicacity I've ever experienced.Like a scout,spy plane,spy satellite,sentinel,sentry,listening post,Cheyenne Mountain,early warning system,one-man reconnaissance mission,plus interpreter,analyst;he's been watching all our backs for decades.I think it's a mistake and great folly to disrespect and turn a deaf ear to these watchers.

I'd say the same about the Ur-environmentalist, Richard Buckminster (Bucky) Fuller.

Practice Metacognition. Become aware of hijacking by modern supernormal stimuli and dopamine manipulation. Make the normal, super to reset your hedonic ratchet. Avoid confirmation bias and consensus trance. See the World through nonrenewable energy/ resource lenses.

'Splain me, Lucy.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

You have some very inaccurate presumptions and prejudices against Hagens since day one of your exposure to him which quickly degraded to rather vicious name calling against him and me. In my analysis it appears to be the result of the dissonance caused by one of his tenets which is that energy underpins most modern human activity and our access to net energy going forward will start to inexorably decline. This is a shock for techno-optimists to learn about so they attack the message and the man.
.
Your statement above is so far off the mark I must try to clarify the facts once again as they pertain to Nate Hagens. He was a High School kid when he had to choose a secondary education major, as many people do while they are still young and inexperienced, and finance seemed like a good opportunity at the time. He is brilliant and so was able to graduate Masters with Honors at U. Chicago and rise straight to the top of Wall Street. A young graduate pursuing the American Dream just as he had been told. But while earning $.5 million/ year managing money for billionaires, he started to notice some things that made him think twice. 1. The rich people were generally miserable much of the time. 2. Big consumption was wrecking the planet.
.
So he walked away from his Wall Street job in 2000 and backpacked with his dog from a parked car for two years to read and study what to do next. He went back to school at U. Vermont to get his PHD in the synthesis view of energy/ economy/ ecology/ resource depletion/ human behavior, and has been since 2007 teaching and writing to save the future for $50,000/ year.
.
Practice Metacognition. Become aware of hijacking by modern supernormal stimuli and dopamine manipulation. Make the normal, super to reset your hedonic ratchet. Avoid confirmation bias and consensus trance. See the World through nonrenewable energy/ resource lenses. Humans and our livestock now outweigh wild land animals 50:1. Adopt some endangered species other than our own. Wake to the mass extinction event that has begun.Promote for a resilient society. Learn. Think. Talk. Steer the conversation for better outcomes.
.

.

I am absolutely prejudiced against the 'Chicago School' of economics.And I'm prejudiced against Lehman Brothers and their derivatives which created the bubble which burst,nearly bringing the entire global economy down,making necessary,the $10-trillion bailout,while the Chicago School economists made off with their wealth.
I've watched three of Hagen's lectures.He doesn't know anything about technology on a meaningful level.He doesn't know anything about mechanical engineering.He doesn't know anything about civil engineering.Ditto for traffic engineering,automotive engineering,thermodynamics and entropy as it affects transportation,home construction,commercial real estate development,building codes,planning and zoning,leisure activities,consumer capitalism.Having the audience that he has,he's in a perfect position to deliver them to a bigger message,however because he doesn't know what he doesn't know,and neither do you,there's an enormous opportunity lost every time he speaks.
He doesn't really understand the 'arithmetic' of climate change.If he did,he'd be doing a modified talk.If his audience goes away believing that they've been fully informed,we're all screwed.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Your move, NB.

At 29yo, I was not elected to the US Congress, if that is what you're asking. And neither was anybody else here.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'll throw in that part of the so-called laissez-faire failing is due to a non-laissez-faire system. Privatizing profits and socializing losses is not laissez-faire.

That isn't to say laissez-faire is without faults, or that we should strive for a completely laissez-faire system, but combining the worst aspects of both a free market and socialization delivers sub-optimal results. Just look at the cost of our healthcare system. In that regard, I'd rather have a completely socialized system than what we've got. People going to the ER with the sniffles with no intention of paying the bill is a misuse of an important health service, and that's incentivized by our insane hybrid system of corruption.

Historically,the free market is credited only with advantage for agriculture and retailing.In all other categories,public enterprise is more efficient.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redneck

Ignoring the elephants (China & India) in the room does not make them go away.

Nobody is ignoring any carbon emitter; least of all Greta Thunberg. The climate doesn't "care" who emits the carbon, and the atmosphere will keep heating up, no matter who put the carbon in the air.

If you actually want to criticize what people say, then you might want to learn what they are saying. So, go listen to what Greta Thunberg has said - until then, your criticism is meaningless.