OT? - 2021 Climate issues

924 views
Skip to first unread message

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 23, 2021, 5:55:19 PMJul 23
to

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 23, 2021, 6:14:48 PMJul 23
to

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 23, 2021, 6:28:40 PMJul 23
to

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 24, 2021, 2:35:54 AMJul 24
to

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 25, 2021, 1:16:36 PMJul 25
to

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 25, 2021, 1:17:48 PMJul 25
to

Andy Evans

unread,
Jul 25, 2021, 2:24:28 PMJul 25
to
Thanks for the references. I've been following what's happening in Madagascar. The South is turning into an uninhabitable desert - no rainfall for years. Sadly the inhabitants there don't even seem to have the strength to migrate to anywhere where there's food.

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 25, 2021, 10:25:38 PMJul 25
to
On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 11:24:28 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> Thanks for the references. I've been following what's happening in Madagascar. The South is turning into an uninhabitable desert - no rainfall for years. Sadly the inhabitants there don't even seem to have the strength to migrate to anywhere where there's food.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/huge-wildfires-burn-dixie-bootleg-heat-dome.html

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 26, 2021, 12:34:08 PMJul 26
to
On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 11:24:28 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> Thanks for the references. I've been following what's happening in Madagascar. The South is turning into an uninhabitable desert - no rainfall for years. Sadly the inhabitants there don't even seem to have the strength to migrate to anywhere where there's food.

https://www.axios.com/record-shattering-heat-waves-becoming-far-more-likely-study-e13fde50-45d8-4bcd-bc86-efecba6c5217.html

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 27, 2021, 11:17:23 PMJul 27
to

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 28, 2021, 11:16:28 AMJul 28
to

Andy Evans

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 4:23:36 AMJul 29
to
On Wednesday, 28 July 2021 at 16:16:28 UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
>

Thanks for that - research from a group of 14,000 scientists couldn't be clearer:
"The authors repeated previous calls for transformative change in six areas:
1. eliminating fossil fuels
2. slashing pollutants
3. restoring ecosystems
4. switching to plant-based diets
5. moving away from indefinite growth models
6. stabilising the human population.

They also called for climate-change education to be included in school core curriculums globally in order to raise awareness of the issue.

The world is resisting almost all of the measures
1. reliance on oil is barely changing. and oil producers do nothing
2. pollutants continue
3. ecosystems are low priority compared with profit and growth
4. the meat industry shows no signs of self control. On the contrary, livestock such as cows and sheep are now at record levels, numbering more than four billion and with a mass exceeding that of all humans and wild land mammals combined. The meat trade is destroying the Amazon at record rates.
5. where is the "new economy" that isn't an indefinite growth model?
6. the human population is unchecked, and the Vatican still only sanctions abstinence as a means of birth control

And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.

MELMOTH

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 4:34:57 AMJul 29
to
Andy Evans a formulé la demande :
> And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases
> can't be reversed.

Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the
question...

HT

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 7:42:52 AMJul 29
to
Op donderdag 29 juli 2021 om 10:34:57 UTC+2 schreef MELMOTH:
RMCR is a digital café. We are all interested in CM, but not exclusively. You might know that by now. Besides, no one is forcing you to listen in and give your opinion.

Henk

Frank Berger

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 8:08:54 AMJul 29
to
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v

Frank Berger

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 10:19:46 AMJul 29
to
Twice recently I came across research that suggests that over the next 30 years or so, global cooling due to lower solar activity (not man made, I think we can be assured) will counteract and perhaps outweigh pollution-caused global warming. I think some NASA scientists have rejected this (not sure why). It's certainly not mainstream thinking at this point. I don't know if these researchers a legitimate, quacks or political stooges. At least one set of researchers is Chinese. One could imagine political reasons for the Chinese government to try to influence thinking on this in either direction. They could your warming and pressure the West to take drastic measures that the Chinese would ignore (even if they agree to it), thereby enhancing their relative power. Or they could tout cooling, to reduce pressure on themselves to reduce emissions.

Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.

Todd Michel McComb

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 12:27:43 PMJul 29
to
In article <117fc868-90d5-489c...@googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>5. moving away from indefinite growth models
>6. stabilising the human population.

Perhaps it's worth noting that the modern (i.e. imperial) era
explicitly linked these items, i.e. in the negative: More people
equals more labor equals more production equals more profits. That's
the modern model. (And consequently one sees e.g. the witch hunts
& other assaults on reproductive knowledge in the early modern
period. This is not generally well understood.) One might thus
characterize the period as one of mechanization in general, including
of the population, the imposition of monocrops, etc.

HT

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 12:40:57 PMJul 29
to
Op donderdag 29 juli 2021 om 16:19:46 UTC+2 schreef Frank Berger:
In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.

Looking back always wins over looking forward.

Henk

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 12:52:07 PMJul 29
to
Concerning "slashing pollutants", long after humanity is dead and gone, Pearl Harbor will still have an oil slick due to oil leaking from the U.S.S. Arizona which was sunk on Dec. 7, 1941:

https://mtviewmirror.com/oil-leaks-from-war-industry-are-destroying-our-oceans/

Frank Berger

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 1:00:09 PMJul 29
to
I'm afraid to ask what you consider the "real problem" to be.

HT

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 1:23:44 PMJul 29
to
Op donderdag 29 juli 2021 om 19:00:09 UTC+2 schreef Frank Berger:
<g> In 2050, I will not be in a position to look back. Others after me will have to do that. They will know, in hindsight.
Looking forward, I can only say that I do not expect man to surpass himself in the next 30 years. We cannot deal in a rational way with Covid, let alone with climate change - if that is the real problem.

Henk

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 2:18:51 PMJul 29
to
- ...Surely no creature other than man has ever managed to foul its nest in such short order.

Lynn White

Frank Berger

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 3:41:21 PMJul 29
to
In 2050 Covid will be a distant memory. Historians will still be arguing about the response. No one but the best historians will emphasize that decisions were made in an environment of extreme uncertainty. Progressives will argue that quarantines, masks and lockdowns saved the human race from extinction. OK, so I exaggerate a little. Libertarians will continue talk about Covid Derangement Syndrome and the Covidocracy and the resulting loss of liberty. Only economists will have written about the economic damage.

Aside: Scientists in Israel are testing an oral Covid vaccine that works in such a way that the common ways in which the virus mutates will not affect its efficacy.

I have no idea about the climate. My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research predicting future disaster. They sell and by the time they are proven wrong, the money is in the bank.

Mr. Mike

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 4:54:02 PMJul 29
to
OT = Off-Topic, y'know...

Steven Bornfeld

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 5:02:06 PMJul 29
to
On 7/29/2021 3:41 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> In 2050 Covid will be a distant memory. Historians will still be arguing
> about the response.  No one but the best historians will emphasize that
> decisions were made in an environment of extreme uncertainty.
> Progressives will argue that quarantines, masks and lockdowns saved the
> human race from extinction.  OK, so I exaggerate a little. Libertarians
> will continue talk about Covid Derangement Syndrome and the Covidocracy
> and the resulting loss of liberty.  Only economists will have written
> about the economic damage.
>
> Aside: Scientists in Israel are testing an oral Covid vaccine that works
> in such a way that the common ways in which the virus mutates will not
> affect its efficacy.
>
> I have no idea about the climate.  My instinct tells me that the most
> extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated,
> simply because they always have been.  Part of that is that it pays to
> write books and publish research predicting future disaster.  They sell
> and by the time they are proven wrong, the money is in the bank.

"It is difficult to make predictions--particularly about the future."

--attributed to Niels Bohr

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 5:14:40 PMJul 29
to
As far as I am concerned, will the human race in the future be at the mercy of unintended consequences?

Or unforeseen circumstances?:

- The only thing we can count on is human error.

me

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 5:16:50 PMJul 29
to

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 5:26:40 PMJul 29
to
On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 2:02:06 PM UTC-7, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
Will disasters shape our future?:

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.history/c/YTW_lnMsDQA

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 5:33:22 PMJul 29
to
"Are we entering a great collapse and extinction process caused by accelerating global warming worsening our 11 other worsening global crises?":

https://www.joboneforhumanity.org/world_s_most_critical_global_challenges

HT

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 5:39:39 PMJul 29
to
Op donderdag 29 juli 2021 om 21:41:21 UTC+2 schreef Frank Berger:
Maybe Covid will be a memory. I'm not so sure about other viruses.

I have my doubts about "an environment of extreme uncertainty" unless you add that at least some of all the uncertainty has been caused by Covid policy, political and professional incompetence, and conflicting institutional or personal interests.

I have deep respect for sound scientific research. Scientists (as consultants, advisors, lobbyists, or members of associations and clubs) are just like other people.

The climate is not what it used to be. The symptoms are obvious. The situation is serious. I see genuine concern - and that's more than I expected. But that's about it.

We may have (the) solution(s), at least in theory. But we do not know the consequences of these solutions, and we are certainly not in a position to implement them. There is a lack of expertise, common sense, good will, etc. etc.

An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.

Henk

Frank Berger

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 6:20:21 PMJul 29
to
I don't know the circumstances, but these seem to me to not necessarily be inconsistent with the long run climate health. Gas is better than coal, isn't it? Netherlands is as carbon reliant as anybody. 10 20 and 50 year plans to de-carbonize (or whatever you want to call it) are notional.



> Henk
>

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 2:40:00 AMJul 30
to

HT

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 4:58:23 AMJul 30
to
Op vrijdag 30 juli 2021 om 00:20:21 UTC+2 schreef Frank Berger:
<g> We are on the move, yes, and will certainly get somewhere in the next 10, 20 and 50 years.

Germany is going from coal to gas. We are going from gas to electricity. The Germans made their move possible by investing in a pipeline from Russia, we are making it possible by investing in biofuel. Since biofuel turns out to have an adverse effect on the climate, we are moving away from it to hydrogen (but that has yet to be produced on a large scale - by Ukraine?).

And this is just the start: what source(s) of energy to use in the future.

BTW, the irony is, Frank, that you cannot let the market decide. A blow for libertarianism.

Henk


Gerard

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 5:28:47 AMJul 30
to
Op 2021-07-29 om 23:39 schreef HT:
>
> An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.
>

Re the Netherlands - the main reason to help citizens get off gas is the
situation in the province Groningen (with earthquakes).


HT

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 6:54:20 AMJul 30
to
Op vrijdag 30 juli 2021 om 11:28:47 UTC+2 schreef Gerard:
In that case, the Netherlands could have joined Germany's project or made a deal with Norway.

Henk

Gerard

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 7:19:53 AMJul 30
to
Op 2021-07-30 om 12:54 schreef HT:
I suppose they did. Gas from Norway, Denmark and Germany is imported and
transported by the Gasunie.

HT

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 7:54:30 AMJul 30
to
Op vrijdag 30 juli 2021 om 13:19:53 UTC+2 schreef Gerard:
If I understand you correctly, there is at this moment no clear reason to invest in getting Netherlands off gas.

Henk

Frank Berger

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 9:09:30 AMJul 30
to
As libertarians, by definition, are not anarchists, there is no reason to assume that libertarians are uniformly opposed to government involvement in internalizing externalities. The difference between libertarians and progressives is that we are aware of, and concerned about, government screwing up anything they get involved with and progressives don't seem to care.

Graham

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 10:16:14 AMJul 30
to
It's ironic that the Groningen gas was derived from coal:-)

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 31, 2021, 1:03:33 AMJul 31
to

Gerard

unread,
Jul 31, 2021, 9:30:36 AMJul 31
to
Op 2021-07-30 om 13:54 schreef HT:
Only to get off Groninger gas.


Andy Evans

unread,
Jul 31, 2021, 2:19:31 PMJul 31
to
On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 20:41:21 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research predicting future disaster. >>

It pays to be outside of mainstream science if you want to publish 'original' ideas, but this applies equally to wacky conspiracy theories, or utopian scenarios, not to mention publications with the money of vested interests behind them. As for "what always has been" we're in completely new territory here - we don't have models for the tipping points we are heading for.

I simply don't believe in "being optimistic"or "being pessimistic" or anything else based on human attitudes. I follow the scientific community in general in simply accepting the evidence and data as it emerges and is backed up by research science and analysis. Whatever that tells us is what is happening. I pay no attention to all those who when interviewed in the media glibly say they are "optimistic", as if it's a sin to be realistic and alarm people. People should be alarmed by what's happening. That's the essential first step, and without it we'll all just continue to have our collective heads in the sand.

gggg gggg

unread,
Jul 31, 2021, 6:02:30 PMJul 31
to

gggg gggg

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 10:59:16 AMAug 1
to

gggg gggg

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 11:11:24 AMAug 1
to
"Civilization-Ending Climate Change Is Knocking On Our Door":

https://hartmannreport.com/p/civilization-ending-climate-change

Frank Berger

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 11:50:08 AMAug 1
to
When people (including scientists) who express a minority view are ridiculed, and though ridicule, intimidated to silence, that is not science. It is akin to religion.

Steven Bornfeld

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 2:54:46 PMAug 1
to
There is no "minority view"--and most claiming to hold views
inconsistent with the evidence have been outed as industry shills.

Herman

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 3:41:50 PMAug 1
to
Plus, the idea that people are being "intimidated into silence" is eerily reminiscent of people on cable tv who shout day after day that they're not allowed to speak their minds, because of political correctness.

Owen

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 7:05:17 PMAug 1
to
On 7/29/21 12:40 PM, HT wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
>
> In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
> good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.
>
> Looking back always wins over looking forward.

Not fer nuttin': (Rhode Island expression)

I'm not hearing many "Damn you, Grandfather!!" calls from our generation
to theirs, which transitioned from a rural, horse powered environment to
a carbon burning, meat packing, ice cap melting one.

Maybe we'll get off easy.

-Owen

gggg gggg

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 7:13:41 PMAug 1
to
- My message is that we'll be watching you. This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. Yet I am one of the lucky ones. People are suffering.

Greta Thunberg

Owen

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 7:16:46 PMAug 1
to
There must always be minority views challenging the status quo, and
that's part of "science" going back to before Galileo, one who held a
very minority view at the time.

-Owen

Frank Berger

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 7:47:53 PMAug 1
to
They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.

Andy Evans

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 8:13:11 PMAug 1
to
On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 00:47:53 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>

Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.

What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.

So what we know is that we can put the most trust in scientists and the least trust in politicians. And even if politicians bring in radical measures, as they will have to eventually, we know it will be resisted by big business and citizens and collective groups who continue to protest about their right to "freedom"........

Frank Berger

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 8:34:51 PMAug 1
to
On 8/1/2021 8:13 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 00:47:53 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>> They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
>
> Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.

You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.
You've said it wrong, by the way. Scientists build models and test them using data. The results are only as good as the model and the data.


>
> What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.

Translation: They don't take the action you want them to take, when you want them to take them.



>
> So what we know is that we can put the most trust in scientists and the least trust in politicians. And even if politicians bring in radical measures, as they will have to eventually, we know it will be resisted by big business and citizens and collective groups who continue to protest about their right to "freedom"........
>

Even if true, it will always be politicians making the decisions.

Steven Bornfeld

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 11:34:17 PMAug 1
to
On 8/1/2021 7:16 PM, Owen wrote:
These guys ain't Galileo

raymond....@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 11:42:40 PMAug 1
to
> On 8/1/2021 8:13 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 00:47:53 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
> >
> > Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.
> You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.

How do know that that is all he has read about? And besides which, the confidence interval is based upon a point interval.

> You've said it wrong, by the way. Scientists build models and test them using data. The results are only as good as the model and the data.

How has he said it wrong?

> > What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.
> Translation: They don't take the action you want them to take, when you want them to take them.

No translation was needed.

> > So what we know is that we can put the most trust in scientists and the least trust in politicians. And even if politicians bring in radical measures, as they will have to eventually, we know it will be resisted by big business and citizens and collective groups who continue to protest about their right to "freedom"........
> >
> Even if true, it will always be politicians making the decisions.

Sadly true. But the more intelligent ones, and those who are not mere shills for business, will make them based upon the best scientific advice.

Ray Hall, Taree

Herman

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 3:08:07 AMAug 2
to
It just isn't going to happen, the politicians making the right decisions at a time when it helps.

Populism and quasi-libertarianism will continue to grow, there will be more protests and astro-turf mass movements protesting the individual's right to freedoms like burning the planet. Mass anxiety about mass migration will foster violent movements and there is just no way that the voices of reason and science will prevail. They don't now.

Covid is a test case and not the first. A sufficient number of people are being manipulated by populists aided by foreign powers aiming to destabilize the other blocs. The number of people rejecting the experts' advice (just for lolz: "Don't fauci my ouchie") will be sufficient for destruction. This will continue and it will get worse and humanity will destroy itself and it will go faster than we previously pictured.

Gerard

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 4:45:17 AMAug 2
to
Op 2021-08-02 om 09:08 schreef Herman:
> It just isn't going to happen, the politicians making the right decisions at a time when it helps.
>
> Populism and quasi-libertarianism will continue to grow, there will be more protests and astro-turf mass movements protesting the individual's right to freedoms like burning the planet. Mass anxiety about mass migration will foster violent movements and there is just no way that the voices of reason and science will prevail. They don't now.
>
> Covid is a test case and not the first. A sufficient number of people are being manipulated by populists aided by foreign powers aiming to destabilize the other blocs. The number of people rejecting the experts' advice (just for lolz: "Don't fauci my ouchie") will be sufficient for destruction. This will continue and it will get worse and humanity will destroy itself and it will go faster than we previously pictured.
>

Besides that. Those guys like liberterians do not want politicians to
have any power to make any decisions about their lifes. Only their free
market should solve all problems.

Andy Evans

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 4:54:07 AMAug 2
to
On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 08:08:07 UTC+1, Herman wrote:
> It just isn't going to happen, the politicians making the right decisions at a time when it helps. Populism and quasi-libertarianism will continue to grow, there will be more protests and astro-turf mass movements protesting the individual's right to freedoms like burning the planet. Mass anxiety about mass migration will foster violent movements and there is just no way that the voices of reason and science will prevail. They don't now. Covid is a test case and not the first. A sufficient number of people are being manipulated by populists aided by foreign powers aiming to destabilize the other blocs. The number of people rejecting the experts' advice (just for lolz: "Don't fauci my ouchie") will be sufficient for destruction. This will continue and it will get worse and humanity will destroy itself and it will go faster than we previously pictured.>>

Herman looks to have it exactly right, based on the evidence we have so far.

Frank Berger

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 10:52:05 AMAug 2
to
On 8/1/2021 11:42 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 8/1/2021 8:13 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 00:47:53 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
>>>
>>> Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.
>> You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.
>
> How do know that that is all he has read about? And besides which, the confidence interval is based upon a point interval.
>

The statistical evaluation of a model produces a point estimate and a confidence interval around that point. So a model might suggest the climate change will end life on earth in, say, 200 years, with a confidence interval of x standard deviations. A model might say, for example that it is 95% confident that the life will end from climate change within 50 and 1000 years from now, with a point estimate of 475 years. Not a ver precise estimate. You need to know the precision with which the estimates are made to know how much confidence to have in the results.

>> You've said it wrong, by the way. Scientists build models and test them using data. The results are only as good as the model and the data.
>
> How has he said it wrong?
>

He said "It gives is various models." What is "it?" The data? That's wrong. You develop a theoretical model and test it using data. Data do not provide or produce the model.

>>> What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.
>> Translation: They don't take the action you want them to take, when you want them to take them.
>
> No translation was needed.
>

I know. It was obvious.

>>> So what we know is that we can put the most trust in scientists and the least trust in politicians. And even if politicians bring in radical measures, as they will have to eventually, we know it will be resisted by big business and citizens and collective groups who continue to protest about their right to "freedom"........
>>>
>> Even if true, it will always be politicians making the decisions.
>
> Sadly true. But the more intelligent ones, and those who are not mere shills for business, will make them based upon the best scientific advice.
>

Of course they will. No one is arguing that. Not believing or questioning a statement made by scientist or a group of scientists is not "denying science," no matter how many times the accusation is made.


> Ray Hall, Taree
>

Frank Berger

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 10:56:44 AMAug 2
to
On 8/2/2021 3:08 AM, Herman wrote:
> It just isn't going to happen, the politicians making the right decisions at a time when it helps.
>
> Populism and quasi-libertarianism

What you needed an adjective to denigrate libertarisnism and chose "quasi?" What is that supposed to mean? Not sure I've seen populism and libertarianism lumped to together like that.

will continue to grow,


Libertarianism show no signs of growing at all. I don't think you even know what it is.

there will be more protests and astro-turf mass movements protesting the individual's right to freedoms like burning the planet. Mass anxiety about mass migration will foster violent movements and there is just no way that the voices of reason and science will prevail. They don't now.
>
> Covid is a test case and not the first. A sufficient number of people are being manipulated by populists aided by foreign powers aiming to destabilize the other blocs. The number of people rejecting the experts' advice (just for lolz: "Don't fauci my ouchie") will be sufficient for destruction. This will continue and it will get worse and humanity will destroy itself and it will go faster than we previously pictured.
>

What are you going to do in th meantime?

Frank Berger

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 11:01:05 AMAug 2
to
This is an exaggeration of course. You are describing anarchists not libertarians. Libertarians believe (and if you check Wikipedia you will see there are many variants of libertarianism) believe people should be free to make decisions for themselves as long as those decisions don't hurt others in a way that is not handled by the market. This implies most decisions are to be left to the market, but not all. Of course, there is a distrust of government, in that government seems to be unable to keep itself from growing and politicians often don't have the information or resources necessary to solve a problem even when it exists.

>

Frank Berger

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 11:03:10 AMAug 2
to
What does "destroy itself" actually mean? All plant an animal life extinct? Just humans? Or is it a colorful description of a damaged, but still livable environment?

gggg gggg

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 11:54:00 AMAug 2