"Decline in global oceanic oxygen content in past 5 decades" Topic

Yes I recycle.

Now you answer my questions.

Shouldn't be goals to work towards by those who are true believers – you are so convinced you should already be doing all of it.

Or maybe you aren't really convinced.

Or maybe you are convinced but have some excuse for mocking others but not walking the walk after talking the talk.

So, who here can you definitively say fits this description? Specifically. Or, are you just making broad assumptions about us based on a stereotype of your own fabrication?

Not making any assumptions. I'm asking questions. Which all of the science guys seem unwilling to answer. And I wonder why…but as stated before, if y'all do live according to the beliefs of what gets shoveled here I would have expected immediate indication of action to match your words.

Bowman and Charlie DiCaprio are great at mocking people as I proved fron their quotes. Yet they are unwilling to answer a simple direct question. Still.

As do you.

And Martin.

Which leads me to conclude that y'all may be all talk, and have no room to criticize or mock others if you don't believe your own science strongly enough to live the sort of life required to save the planet.

So how about it? Straight answers or more nonsense?

How can you NOT understand it now?

Dan
PS. You are right. They bring the hypothetical doomsday problems to the table, but they have no long term solutions at all for them that don't involve our national and economic suicide in the short term.

Dan-

That's a spurious argument trumped up by deniers.

Have you not read any of the other posts here and in so many other Climate threads here at TMP?

You are right. It is easy to understand. Here it is. In the "long-term" we need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. No one proposes that we turn off the taps tomorrow. That means a long transition to renewables, including the development of whole new industries, R&D, and manufacturing opportunities.

So there is your "long-term" solution.

Look, the problem is real:

link

link

Why would Exxon Mobile scientists conclude that climate change was a real consequence of their product's use, if it weren't true?

The main problem with discussions like this is that we mere mortals, in our hubris, refuse to accept the Truth as revealed by those scientists who have sworn mighty oaths to speak nothing but the Truth. They are not the least interested in things like peer pressure, grants etc.
Their oaths, sworn before a mighty God of Truth, mean that everything they say is to be swallowed despite any misgivings we may have.
Wait. What's that you say? There are no such oaths? Scientists are human?

How many times have you made these points regarding science, and how many times have I schooled you on the facts? Most scientists work for institutions and corporations. They are salaried, not paid by grants. Many research firms are independent contractors. I have provided you with links to this info in the past. I'm sure you remember. However, if you have forgotten, I'll be more than happy to dig them up and repost them for you. In the meantime, here's a case that would seem to debunk your position (as posted in my response to Dan:

link

link

And as I posed to Dan, why would Exxon Mobile scientists conclude that climate change was a real consequence of their product's use, if it weren't true?

Sarcasm aside, returning to my first post on this topic….
What's your solution?
If there is no solution, there is no problem.

Seriously. There's no solution for pancreatic cancer, so it's not a problem? There's no solution for famine, so there's no problem?

Or did you mean to say, "If there is no problem, there is no solution. That would make more sense to me, especially if it came from a denier.

Yes I recycle.

That's great! Hey you do know that we can legally use public men's rooms now regardless of our non-biological ideology.

Now you answer my questions.

Shouldn't be goals to work towards by those who are true believers – you are so convinced you should already be doing all of it.

Absolutely.

Or maybe you aren't really convinced.

I am convinced that climate change is real and that burning fossil fuels is driving it.

I am convinced that many people don't walk the walk, but I know that most people I know, even you, walk the walk to a certain degree.

Or maybe you are convinced but have some excuse for mocking others but not walking the walk after talking the talk.

I recycle, I have a solar water heater on the roof. I made it myself. I also have solar panels on the roof. They haven't paid for themselves yet. I was a pain in the ass at the office deploying little blue recycle baskets in every office and large bins in the breakroom and then shaming the staff into using them. They are doing pretty good too. I have a fireplace that hasn't been used in years. My electric power is dam-turbine generated. I drive a Prius. Oh, and most importantly I vote for politicians who promote legislation to address the problem.

Could I do more? Of course, everybody can always do more. It's an evolving way of life.

Now, do I believe that Charlie and Bowman walk the walk? I have no idea. Do I hope they do? Yes. Should they try to convince you that they do? No! It's none of your, or my freakin' business what their private lives are all about.

So, now that I have told you how I have been doing my part to fight climate change, will you take me off your list of those who don't walk-the-walk? No way. You don't believe a word I wrote. To tell you the truth, I'm not so sure I believe any of it myself. Besides, you would be a fool to make any assumptions about me based on what I say or don't say about myself here. After all, it is the internet.

It is my freaking business if they choose to hypocritically post, talk down to others and openly mock those who disagree with them.

Just as I point out the hypocrisy of the five mansion, private jet lifestyle of those who lecture us but do not believe or act on the they shovel.

Whether I believe what you posted or not doesn't matter. If it is true then great. At least you bothered to answer the question. If you chose to lie about it, I won't know but you will, and you'll remember that every time the issue is raised. You see you in the mirror, not me.

It also says more about you than the chickens who claim they only respond to substance yet have a history of doing the opposite.

And you make a hell of a lot of assumptions and draw a hell of a lot of conclusions about folks based on what they post. How does that match what you just described? After all, this is the internet. Fool.

I still think that the best solution to the Dawg Haus "pride" is to send all offenders to cool off in the Bluey Fezzy, and dismantle the DH…………..

And Bowman still won't admit that he's big on blab but short on action.

@Great War Ace: "I still think that the best solution to the Dawg Haus "pride" is to send all offenders to cool off in the Bluey Fezzy, and dismantle the DH………….."

Or just create a Global Warming Debate Board and keep all the proselytizing (and the resistance to the proselytizing) from poisoning everything else and each other.

TMP link

Dan

AGW is hardly the only topic that gets people sent to the DH. So my solution is worthy of a try.

AGW is hardly the only topic that gets people sent to the DH.

You are totally correct, GWA. Some science topics such as AGW, stem cell research and evolution have political, religious and philosophical implications. Heck, there was even a brouhaha about Pluto being demoted to dwarf planet. Some people can't seem to separate the science and non-science components and that leads to the problems. I think we generally police this the best ourselves.

For example, I am very far into the Evolution camp and will happily debate the non-merits of Creationism on the Science board. That is because Creationism puts itself out there as a "Science" and should go head to head with Evolution in the Science class. And that is a far cry from attacking or berating someone's religion. That is not what the Science board is about.

So my solution is worthy of a try.

And here I will totally disagree. I don't think that Science topics should go to that intellectual cesspool known as The Blue Fez, simply because some people don't understand them, or cannot differentiate the Science from religion, politics and philosophy.

Like I said on a different thread, if a topic is painful to you, then exercise your freedom by not reading it or engaging in it. If it is breaking TMP's rules then report it to Bill.

BTW, I have been DH'd a few times, and some of them were from topics from the Science Board. But none of the infractions had any thing to do with the topics being discussed. Usually, the debate got a little heated and some people reacted in an uncivil manner. That was always my case, and I'm fine with Bill's decisions. Lesson hopefully learned.

It is my freaking business…

No, JJ, it most definitely is NOT. My private life is just that, PRIVATE. Just as YOURS is. And, ad hominem attacks such as this is a bankrupt method of argument.

Want to be taken seriously? Do better…

I don't think that Science topics should go to that intellectual cesspool known as The Blue Fez, simply because some people don't understand them, or cannot differentiate the Science from religion, politics and philosophy.

Totally agree. And while I have an intense aversion to censorship, given the trainwreck that the Science Board seems to devolve into (thanks to some who just can't stay out of the political/social cesspool), it might even be advisable to drop the whole damned board…

"thanks to some who just can't stay out of the political/social cesspool"

You are very welcome. But let's not forget to say thanks for the relentless proselytizing efforts of those who think we needed an update on every single doomsday gas report that comes out or ice cube sighted.

Chicken or the egg. Or did you think this was all unrelated?

Dan

You are very welcome. But let's not forget to say thanks for the relentless proselytizing efforts of those who think we needed an update on every single doomsday gas report that comes out or ice cube sighted.

proselytizing implies changing people's beliefs… The wonderful thing about science is that you don't have to believe it to be true, it just exists.

Maybe I can get a doctor's note for "cognitive dissonance". :)

link

Dan

I'm disappointed that it was not the "battle of the bowties". What's up with Tucker?

As for cognitive dissonance, may I suggest single malt scotch? I like the Lagavulin 16 year old. Enough of them you'll be mispronouncing "cognitive dissonance" with a Scottish accent!

I'm on a student budget, so my go-to is Isley Mist 8 Year for peaty scotch goodness.

"Cognitive dissonance is not a form of delusion."

"Skepticism is not the same as denialism in the face of overwhelming evidence".

"The rate of change in the climate is different than the climate has always been changing".

"Instead of climate change occurring in thousands of years it's happening on a time scale of decades"

That's just the first 3 minutes. Hope Tucker is paying attention to the nuances.

I'm on a student budget, so my go-to is Isley Mist 8 Year for peaty scotch goodness.

Well to be honest the Lagavulin was a Christmas present from my son.

Well I missed a lot while on conference. Cannot feel sorry for it. Don't take JJs, GWA and others, bait people.Post and ignore. Happened quite well in the other thread on this same topic. It is very very healthy :)

"In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, when performing an action that contradicts those beliefs, ideas, and values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts existing beliefs, ideas, and values …
Dissonant relationship: Two cognitions or actions inconsistent with each other (e.g. not wanting to become drunk when out to dinner, then drinking much wine)"
- Lowly Wikipedia

Is this cognitive dissonance?

Demanding that others allow you to believe what you will without criticism or ridicule, then cringing, mumbling and criticizing when hearing other people express what they believe?

If so, I think it goes both ways.

Dan
PS. It's hilarious to watch a hardcore atheist react when someone else says "bless you" or "Merry Christmas". They typically do not take the well-wishing in the spirit it is given.

A-listers flew eyebrow artist 7,500 miles to do their brows for the Oscars

link

So if you believe in AGW and the evil of man's role yet you find this perfectly acceptable does that count as cognitive dissonance or just hypocrisy?

Lol. Priceless.

Dan

The wonderful thing about science is that you don't have to believe it to be true, it just exists.

The wonderful thing about science is that you don't have to believe it to be true, it just exists.

So very true. And the universe really doesn't care what we think. Its just there. In all its wonder….

How can the universe just be there in all its wonder if there is no intellect to define what is wonderful about it? Did the universe come up with sapience so it could admire itself?…………

How can the universe just be there in all its wonder if there is no intellect to define what is wonderful about it?

Very easily. It was here looong before we hit the scene and will be here looong after we're gone. Sapience has absolutely nothing to do with it.

"The wonderful thing about science is that you don't have to believe it to be true, it just exists."

Lol. And your current understanding of the science is also that infallible?

How many times have you heard a scientist utter the words "we'll have to re-think everything we've come to understand about XYZ"?

Dan

How many times have you heard a scientist utter the words "we'll have to re-think everything we've come to understand about XYZ"?

First of all, that a feature, not a bug of the scientific method, since unlike theology, science can't offer 100% metaphysical certainty.

As for hearing that phrase in the vulgar press? Quite often, but I don't think that most people are well served from getting their science news from outlets like the 6 O'clock news, since way too often complex subjects are taken out of context and distilled to a "gee whiz" 30 second to 1 minute clip to act as filler between weather news and the sports highlights/latest Kardashian news. That also leads to conflicting cancer reports (ie. New study finds X increases [or decreases] odd of getting cancer by a hundred fold! (without offering absolute odds, since increase of 0.0001% to 0.01% is a hundred fold increase, but it's only really relevant at a population level).

Besides, there's a long way to go between wrong and incomplete. I suggest you read The Relativity of Wrong by Issac Asimov ( link ) Even though Einstein has superseded Newton in Physics, there's a reason why we still teach Newtonian mechanics to high schoolers and undergrads – For 99% of what we do it's good enough and the extra precision offered by Relativity is drowned out by either measurement error (in the same way that even if we've calculated Pi to trillions of digits, NASA only uses the first 15 to keep the ISS on track link ) or would be too computationally intensive to be of use in a timely manner). The only example I could think of where Newtownian mechanics would fail in our solar system is tracking the procession of Mercury and satellite navigation, but since I'm a geographer and not a physicist, I might be missing a few other examples.

And apparently one other great thing about science is folks can look at the results, lecture others about how serious the condition is, demand government action, but not feel compelled to act on that same information with any sense of urgency or at all.

I don't think that most people are well served from getting their science news from outlets like the 6 O'clock news, since way too often complex subjects are taken out of context and distilled to a "gee whiz" 30 second to 1 minute clip to act as filler between weather news and the sports highlights/latest Kardashian news.

Yes…much better to get it from RELIABLE sources like the IPCC who believe in magic trees to excuse their record carbon footprint in South America, and stating in their own reports that they lack sufficient clarity to take action on the footprint they cause.

Clearly a MUCH better source.

Lol. And your current understanding of the science is also that infallible?

I think you are missing the point, Dan. When I'm sitting in a jet, I don't have to believe that it will fly, nor do I have to understand the principles involved in order for the jet to fly. That is what is meant by "not having to believe it to be true" in Martin's comment. The jet will fly from well understood scientific principles……belief or no belief.

As far as infallibility goes, Martin answered that.

And apparently one other great thing about science is folks can look at the results, lecture others about how serious the condition is, demand government action, but not feel compelled to act on that same information with any sense of urgency or at all.

Easy to say, but that is not how the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology works, especially with it's current chairman.

link

link

link

link

link

link

Again, none of this deals with science, which unfortunately is par for the course on this Board for the reasons I've explained upstream.

JJ, I believe that your reference to "magic trees" refers to carbon-offsets? If so, the there's a wide spectrum of opinion about carbon offsets, and while I am an economic/financial geographer, I don't have the depth of knowledge on this subject as I do of CO2 feedbacks.

In it's most reductionist view, carbon offsets is a way of "balancing" a ledger, by adding more credits to the credit side or cutting planned debits before they happen by buying-out polluting activity before it happens.

Now, where it does get messy is the implementation side. Many policy makers who are heavily influenced by neo-classical economics (ie. the neoliberal Davos attendees) see offsets as a way of squaring the circle of paying lip service to climate change without any deep structural reforms in developed economies all the way to a get-rich quick scheme similar to how the Pope Leo X sold indulgences.

But at the end of the day, just like Creationists love to conflate abiogenisis and evolution, climate science is a separate issue than carbon offsets.

Now, where it does get messy is the implementation side.

And separation of aspects into "separate issues" is helpful, how, exactly?

If specialization requires experts from each studied "issue" to chime in, and everyone else to be waved off, we have a self-made problem.

The proletariat are not going to be onboard with any solutions that put limits on their income earning power, or their freedom to switch jobs/careers, or their freedom of movement; much less their lifestyle of energy consumption to suit a plush level of comfort and security, etc.

This applies at all levels, which is why we see JJ's constant pointing to the hypocrisy. Nobody, but nobody, is going to sacrifice the life to which they have become accustomed, because it is essential, not extravagant. And the dichotomy of the filthy rich (self-appointed gatekeepers of the proletariat) jetting about, justifying their hugely wasteful lifestyles as "necessary" only pisses the plebs off. You will get rebellion, destruction even, from the unwashed masses if the elites continue to be separated by what privileges wealth can buy: all the while pointing to how they can "save the world" by making the unwashed sacrifice…………….

JJ, I believe that your reference to "magic trees" refers to carbon-offsets?

I'm referring specifically to the IPCC report that claimed their footprint from the meeting would be offset by an identified grove of trees if left alone for X number of years.

For that to be true, those trees would have to have been sitting, inoperative and not already absorbing CO2 at their max rate until the IPCC threw a magic switch that made them available exclusively for their needs.

while I am NOT an economic/financial geographer, and I don't have the depth of knowledge on this subject or CO2 feedbacks, I'm smart enough to understand that in situ trees do not operate in that manner.

And separation of aspects into "separate issues" is helpful, how, exactly?

If specialization requires experts from each studied "issue" to chime in, and everyone else to be waved off, we have a self-made problem.

I try hard to make sure that my statements here are as accurate as possible. I'm simply stating that I personally don't have the depth of knowledge on carbon offsets compared to what I know about CO2 feedbacks. I didn't think admitting weakness on a subject was elitist.

For that to be true, those trees would have to have been sitting, inoperative and not already absorbing CO2 at their max rate until the IPCC threw a magic switch that made them available exclusively for their needs.

I tried google and I couldn't find the exact incident, but I would assume that for it to be certified for a carbon offset, they were essentially buying a reprieve from logging, and thus continuing sink carbon after their "execution date".

Again, from all of the readings I've been doing on the subject today between students during my office hours, I don't think that offsets are the end-all be-all of mitigating climate change. At best I see them as slight net positives to worst case worthless PR efforts.

Furthermore, there's a wide spectrum of opinion in the literature over exactly how to run the accounting, such as whether buying out logging companies to keep forests upright should count, if spending on renewable power sources should count if there were pre-existing spending allocated for a renewable energy project, or if the perverse incentives caused by carbon-offsets are net negative, such as cutting down old growth forests in the Carolinas to supply wood pellets for European power plants.

I tried google and I couldn't find the exact incident, but I would assume that for it to be certified for a carbon offset, they were essentially buying a reprieve from logging, and thus continuing sink carbon after their "execution date".

Except in the IPCC document, there was no discussion of buying the trees cutting rights, nor did it acknowledge that the trees were already "in use " as it were.

Do you have that document?

To be a carbon offset it need to remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than the assumed baseline. For trees that essentially boils down to planting more trees – which does have some drawbacks, such as it's not instant pay-back, increased risk of mono-crop failure, soil problems… – or keeping existing trees in the ground. Quite mundane if you ask me.

In many places you cannot simply plant trees and expect that there will be more trees. If there is not enough water in the soil the planted trees will die. For example, in Arizona, iirc the unnaturally high water content over most of the twentieth century allowed ten times the number of trees to flourish. But with the soil returning of late to its more common saturation, ninety percent of the existing trees are stressed and dying off.

As Martin points out, carbon offsets can work. However, as they say, the devil is in the details. Some well crafted programs have worked according to plan. While others (the ones that amount to over-hyped PR moves), not so much. To properly assess any such program, requires almost a case-by-case review.