Friends and Foes

BaalChatzaf · November 12, 2016

Nothing can violate the second law of thermodynamics Heat leaves the body and enters the air trapped by a blanket (the air initially being cooler than the body) and its entropy in leaving the hot body is less than the entropy of entering the cooler air. Entropy has increased according to the second law. Blankets are insulators. Eventually the heat trapped the air will warm up the blanket which will then radiate heat to the cold outside the blanket. Black Bodies will achieve thermodynamic equilibrium or tend to thermodynamic equilibrium by radiating heat to the colder outside. The rate of heat radiation is proportional to the 4 th power of the temperature difference between the black body and the temperature of the outside. This is the Stephan-Boltzmann law.

william.scherk · November 12, 2016

Talking points.

william.scherk · January 16, 2018

From the Trump Humor thread, of all places:

On 1/4/2018 at 9:21 AM, Jonathan said:

Lately I've been hearing and seeing hints of the idea that attacking falsifiability may be the next tactic of the alarmists. I've heard and read climate scientists being interviewed who briefly mentioned that too much has been made of the concept of falsifiability in science, that real science isn't limited to your average person's childhood science education which includes falsifiability, and that climate science is much too important and complex to be limited to having to be falsifiable. One interviewee actually said something along the lines of, "Do these deniers actually expect our predictions to be accurate? Is that what they think science is?"

Sorry that I have no links. I think I'll start collecting references to these statements as I come across them from now on.

And then there's ...

... a cool discussion has been had there.

Jonathan · January 16, 2018

From the Popper article:

"However, these ideas are intended to guide how we do science, but are not really intended to impose a set of rules that we never violate."

No, they're actually rules that can't be violated. They're the defining elements of real science. They're not suggestions, or sort of kind of rough, optional guidelines which we can ignore if we feel that we want to be free to color outside the lines. Without them, we have pseudoscience.

The fact that so-called scientists are beginning to advocate the idea of eliminating falsifiability, or at least sometimes skirting its requirements when things aren't working out well for their theories, is quite telling.

"In most cases, the systems we’re considering are too complex for a set of simplistic rules to be applicable."

Ah, the rules that govern science are "simplistic" when we want our theories to bypass them, huh? I would imagine then that logic would also be icky poopy "simplistic," since it's really no different from the notion of falsifiability. Why can't science just be about feelings? After all, it's too complex and advanced for most childish idiots and the stupid logic stuff that they believe from grade school!

Are there other scientific principles which will also soon be too stinking simplistic? Perhaps prediction and testing? I mean, how inconvenient! Gosh, the little people with their elementary school ideas of science just don't understand the complexity involved in something as grand and important as our work in climate science, so their foolish rules about prediction and testing should be reconsidered. We're scientists, after all, and they're just stupid nobodies, so why should they tell us what to do? So let's skip the predictions and tests part, and just go from hypothesis to analysis. My analysis is that I feel really good and confident in the brilliance of my hypothesis! I'm amazing, and it's settled science.

Michael Stuart Kelly · January 16, 2018

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

We're scientists, after all, and they're just stupid nobodies, so why should they tell us what to do? So let's skip the predictions and tests part, and just go from hypothesis to analysis. My analysis is that I feel really good and confident in the brilliance of my hypothesis! I'm amazing, and it's settled science.

Jonathan,

And then there's all that government money...

Michael

william.scherk · August 20, 2018

On 9/14/2016 at 1:07 PM, william.scherk said:

On 9/14/2016 at 12:05 PM, Jonathan said:

As I've asked before, where might I review the "settled science"?

I like the question, though I don't remember you putting it exactly like that before.

I like the question in that it can be answered several ways, or from several levels of focus. One such level could be the discrete building blocks of the textbook science, if what a textbook might contain is near enough to what you mean by 'settled science.' Another level or angle of focus might be a historical reconstruction, a timeline of discovery and consolidation. Another might be focusing intently on where the most uncertainties are.

Where might I review scientific work under the rubric science? It depends. If I were you, I would give me an idea of how you came to your position, or more perfectly, taking a position to elaborate upon or defend.

NB to self -- dig back for an answer to these suggestions.

On 9/14/2016 at 1:07 PM, william.scherk said:

I think I might have asked if you would read Spencer Weart's book. Did you give that consideration, or did you look at the website that accompanies and expands upon the book?

Why I recommend it is that it filled in the holes in my general knowledge. Who came first, Fournier, Tyndall or Arrhenius? How can I be reasonably sure that the 'greenhouse' effect is sound and foundational knowledge?

It has meat enough to serve as a general-interest introduction to all the building blocks of what is known to a reasonable degree.

This might interest folks following climate discussions ... who are somewhat skeptical of the Scott Adams take:

Jonathan · August 20, 2018

27 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

This might interest folks following climate discussions ... who are somewhat skeptical of the Scott Adams take:

Appeal to authority and consensus? No thanks. I'd rather stick with science, not politics.

Here are the questions again:

"As I've asked before, where might I review the 'settled science'? Where are the models which have accurately, reliably, repeatedly predicted anthropogenic global warming? All of the models that I've seen have failed in their predictions."

I'm not interested in a scientist's attempts to skirt science and pretend that he's not doing so.

J

Brant Gaede · August 21, 2018

5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Appeal to authority and consensus? No thanks. I'd rather stick with science, not politics.

Here are the questions again:

"As I've asked before, where might I review the 'settled science'? Where are the models which have accurately, reliably, repeatedly predicted anthropogenic global warming? All of the models that I've seen have failed in their predictions."

I'm not interested in a scientist's attempts to skirt science and pretend that he's not doing so.

J

If AGW were scientifically defendable it would still be called AGW instead of CC (climate change). So if AGW is attacked by any and sundry they are called "climate change deniers" in a reverse bait and switch. I have yet to meet or hear of a climate change denier. Who denies climate change? Village idiots? It's all still an argument from authority: one is an idiot and the other an authority. Some authority! An authority on idiots by idiots? Not! Just the latter.

--Brant

Jonathan · August 21, 2018

9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If AGW were scientifically defendable it would still be called AGW instead of CC (climate change). So if AGW is attacked by any and sundry they are called "climate change deniers" in a reverse bait and switch. I have yet to meet or hear of a climate change denier. Who denies climate change? Village idiots? It's all still an argument from authority: one is an idiot and the other an authority. Some authority! An authority on idiots by idiots? Not! Just the latter.

--Brant

Indeed. It's very anti-scientific. Belittling skeptics is not science. Vilifying people who ask for the science is not a scientific mindset. Denying or impeding critics of open access to information, models and methods does not show confidence in one's publicly shouted opinions. All of the above are the behaviors of doubt and fear.

On top of that, the "consensus" scientists very often make public proposals to counter the alleged problems, and in doing so, step outside their areas of education and expertise. They vocally advocate for potentially very harmful policies in fields which they are not "authorities," nor even novices.

J

9thdoctor · August 21, 2018

This guy from ARI does a good job.

Though I'm not so sure about the hairstyle.

9thdoctor · August 21, 2018

This one certainly gets the skeptical juices flowing. If the recent data don't support warming, make the past colder!

anthony · August 21, 2018

Very good by Epstein, e.g. "Nature doesn't give us a safe climate that we make dangerous, but a dangerous climate ...etc."

However, it seems his aim is at those listeners who are prepared to reason, in the first place. The "framework" for persuasion presupposes rational-minded people who look for human values and positives, above all. We all know of others who will go into hysterics (in "denial" perhaps?) at any perceived slighting of what amounts to a religion: Man-caused 'climate change'.

Don't you come with "reason" or "positives" and solutions!!

Well - if AGW/GW/CC mattered so much to so many, further developing of safe nuclear energy, would have been receiving top attention, surely?

The climate science isn't even the half of it, or a pretext for many, there is also altruism package-dealed together in the mix, along with coercion and big money. Here again, the purveyors of sacrifice and/or self-sacrifice who would delight in seeing men and man's mind in general, forced to atone for their transgressions upon mother earth. Mea culpa.

william.scherk · August 21, 2018

All maps are wrong, all models are wrong, all scenarios are not equally-plausible.

"This might interest folks following climate discussions ... who are somewhat skeptical of the Scott Adams take:"

Or not. We aren't all big readers, especially of unknown bloggers like Victor Venema.

There are models and models, one could say. There could be 'settled science' and 'contested science' about any particular aspect of what Brant calls Anthropogenic Global Warming. There are so-called attribution studies, allied with the finicky business of estimating 'climate sensitivity' to increased concentrations of CO². There are "model runs" of the giant climate models (call them computer climate models?).

Forcing is another term in models of the atmosphere more particularly concerned with the physics of the so-called Greenhouse Effect. GHE.

Thinking of components of a physical model -- be it metaphoric or mathematical -- can help a person figure out which bits are 'settled' enough in his or her mind to call an item -- say the GHE -- more or less well understood, more or less solid, more or less fully understood in terms of physics atmospheric processes.

Brant^**, it can help to disassemble the package deal. Climate change is a truism when no time-span is specified. The last time there was a different climate in Tucson, for example, there was no Tucson. Climate change is the larger concept, as climate is not simply temperature.

-- I recommend, as ever, Spencer Weart's book and website The Discovery of Global Warming. For those wondering especially about the stages of discovery of the atmospheric properties of CO², it's a good resource and will bring you up to speed on how some people came to be convinced the GHE is quite real. You can come up to speed on the entailments of GHE and the simplest predictions of the modern era. You can become familiar with the 'building blocks' of a present day understanding of the effect of CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere.

For models, it is important to define what kind of models (or which model failures) you have in mind.

Here's a bit of the Variable Variability material I linked to in the clickable image above.

Quote

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wrote today about how difficult it is for a non-expert to judge science and especially climate science. He argues that it is normally a good idea for a non-expert to follow the majority of scientists. I agree. Even as a scientist I do this for topics where I am not an expert and do not have the time to go into detail. You cannot live without placing trust and you should place your trust wisely.

While it is clear to Scott Adams that a majority of scientists agree on the basics of climate change, he worries that they still could all be wrong. He lists the below six signals that this could be the case and sees them in climate science. If you get your framing from the mitigation sceptical movement and only read the replies to their nonsense you may easily get his impression. So I thought it would be good to reply. It would be better to first understand the scientific basis, before venturing into the wild.

The terms Global Warming and Climate Change are both used for decades

Scott Adams assertion: It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

This is a meme spread by the mitigation sceptics that is not based on reality. From the beginning both terms were used. One hint is name of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global group of scientists who synthesise the state of climate research and was created in 1988.

The irony of this strange meme is that it were the PR gurus of the US Republicans who told their politicians to use the term "climate change" rather than "global warming", because "global warming" was more scary. The video below shows the historical use of both terms.

Global warming was called global warming because the global average temperature is increasing, especially in the beginning there were still many regions were warming was not yet observed, while it was clear that the global average temperature was increasing. I use the term "global warming" if I want to emphasis the temperature change and the term "climate change" when I want to include all the other changes in the water cycle and circulation. These colleagues do the same and provide more history.

Talking about "adjusted", mitigation sceptics like to claim that temperature observations have been adjusted to show more warming. Truth is that the adjustments reduce global warming.

Climate models are not essential for basic understanding

Scott Adams assertion: 2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

Yes, climate models are complicated. They synthesise a large part of our understanding of the climate system and thus play a large role in the synthesis of the IPCC. They are also the weakest part of climate science and thus a focus of the propaganda of the mitigation sceptical movement.

However, when it comes to the basics, climate model are not important. We know about the greenhouse effect for well over a century, long before we had any numerical climate models. That increasing the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere leads to warming is clear, that this warming is amplified because warm air can contain more water, which is also a greenhouse gas, is also clear without any complicated climate model. This is very simple physics already used by Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century.

[...]

Arrhenius! Physics! Scott Adams!

______________________

** Brant and I have trod the same ground already:

Spoiler

On 6/30/2015 at 12:43 PM, william.scherk said:

(If I could whine for a moment, I wish that folks here would take up my suggestion to read Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming. It comprises both the science and the politics -- from the earliest days of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. As far as I can tell, nobody here has so much as glanced at it (save perhaps Ellen, who mentioned it in quotations of Bernie Lewin's blog review article of the 2003 edition, which she excerpted in two parts [1 and 2] in the thread Scientific Fraud becoming endemic? -- where the reviewer took issue with Weart's discussion of consensus, among other defects. What might interest Ellen is that Spencer Weart added his own friendly commentary to the reviewer's blog posting (Debate!). I have excerpted Weart's responses at the very bottom^a.)

For those who are willing to get their feet wet, I suggest either reading the timeline of discovery or the narrative version of the timeline. The book is also available at Amazon (bear in mind that Weart's website is a vastly extended version of that volume -- but is meticulously documented). Readers who really don't have the time or interest might take time to read an excerpt from it at Scientific American ... it's a mere 2203 words.

Quote

the use of CC for political reasons [is] creating the illusion [that climate change] just a scientific issue and that those who take issue are cranks and "deniers."

I'm sorry, but this confuses me. Please take the time to read the WUWT article I noted for Bob above, if you haven't already. I would say that if one can't understand the scientific disputes surrounding the thread topic, that someone has claimed to falsify the central concept of the 'greenhouse effect,' then the political debates will make no sense.

You are a very bright man, and you are entirely skeptical, I would guess, that there is such a thing as 'settled science' except in narrowly defined circumstances. Your intelligence, and your rational tools of inquiry are the only thing that can help you make sense of both the scientific and political debates.

I do not use the term 'denier,' whatever its convenience. I use the term that the so-called deniers prefer: (climate change) skeptic.

As for crankery and crackpots, they exist -- and they exist in climate debates (the WUWT article I recommended is an instance of where climate realists or climate skeptics put to the test a crackpot notion, via replicable experiment). I gave the example of Velikovsky and the metaphor of a walled-garden. I believe you understand what the term means, and I believe you understand the distinction between pseudoscience and science. I believe you understand that rigorous methodology and hard-played peer review is a necessary form of winnowing the wheat from the chaff.

If we don't start with the scientific debate -- before arguing politics -- then we are in a state of relative ignorance, and our political struggles have only a strained association with reality.

That is the final arbiter, isn't it, Brant? Reality.

Please show me good faith and review my several comments in this thread before you reply -- not to agree with me, but just to understand my stance vis a vis reason, evidence, objectivity and the processes of scientific debate. We are allies in our most basic values, I believe. We seek the same ends. We each want to be as informed as humanly possible, within our limitations and cognizant of our biases.

Recursion!

Edited August 21, 2018 by william.scherk

william.scherk · August 21, 2018

Epstein's talk in text with timecode. This is the auto-generated caption file from Youtube, so it is not a perfect transcription. But for folks who prefer the written record ...

http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/VIDEOCASTS/A13KF/epsteinTalkToAlarmist.txt

[OL textarea kludge since the forum no longer allows a *.txt file inside an iframe

Full text captions:

00:00:06,910 - 00:00:11,439 I decided to become a philosopher by the
00:00:11,440 - 00:00:13,869 way if you guys could set the time up
00:00:13,870 - 00:00:15,558 here that would be helpful so I
00:00:15,559 - 00:00:18,909 super long and crowd anyone else out
00:00:18,910 - 00:00:20,929 yeah that's just considered the most
00:00:20,930 - 00:00:23,028 irrelevant thing and Jim just mentioned
00:00:23,029 - 00:00:24,799 Barbara Boxer in fact when I went in
00:00:24,800 - 00:00:27,049 front of the Senate Environment and
00:00:27,050 - 00:00:29,769 Public Works Committee two years ago she
00:00:29,770 - 00:00:32,179 reassured me that I had no business
00:00:32,180 - 00:00:34,968 talking about energy mr. Epstein are you
00:00:34,969 - 00:00:38,449 a scientist no philosopher you're a
00:00:38,450 - 00:00:42,369 philosopher yes okay well this is the
00:00:42,370 - 00:00:44,659 Environment and Public Works Committee I
00:00:44,660 - 00:00:45,709 think it's interesting we have a
00:00:45,710 - 00:00:47,689 philosopher here talking about an issue
00:00:47,690 - 00:00:49,308 it's to teach you how to think more
00:00:49,309 - 00:00:57,309 clearly you don't have to teach me so I
00:01:01,370 - 00:01:04,819 did not have that plant but it's just
00:01:04,820 - 00:01:07,579 what came to mind because I really
00:01:07,580 - 00:01:10,069 believe that it's it's true I actually
00:01:10,070 - 00:01:12,769 believe that of all the subjects that we
00:01:12,770 - 00:01:15,709 need right now at a time where we've got
00:01:15,710 - 00:01:18,019 so much opportunity to advance this
00:01:18,020 - 00:01:20,688 country forward energy wise and also so
00:01:20,689 - 00:01:24,169 much peril I think that philosophy is a
00:01:24,170 - 00:01:30,468 crucial crucial subject and before I go
00:01:30,469 - 00:01:32,118 into why that is I just want to share
00:01:32,119 - 00:01:34,519 with you what I want to cover today
00:01:34,520 - 00:01:37,218 which is really not so much the moral
00:01:37,219 - 00:01:40,038 case for fossil fuels but how you can
00:01:40,039 - 00:01:42,349 use the moral case for fossil fuels to
00:01:42,350 - 00:01:44,179 be far more influential over the
00:01:44,180 - 00:01:46,008 conversation today I think that's what's
00:01:46,009 - 00:01:48,319 really needed people in this room have a
00:01:48,320 - 00:01:49,728 lot more knowledge than the average
00:01:49,729 - 00:01:50,959 person to say the least about these
00:01:50,960 - 00:01:53,148 issues what I want to try to be useful
00:01:53,149 - 00:01:56,508 on is how to be far more persuasive how
00:01:56,509 - 00:02:00,019 to win more people over and that's
00:02:00,020 - 00:02:01,728 something over the years I feel like
00:02:01,729 - 00:02:03,408 I've had a lot of success at and in fact
00:02:03,409 - 00:02:05,658 we started doing studies about before
00:02:05,659 - 00:02:07,368 and after people encountered my work
00:02:07,369 - 00:02:09,919 what happened to them and for instance
00:02:09,920 - 00:02:11,719 we saw that in terms of people who felt
00:02:11,720 - 00:02:13,789 confident turning non supporters into
00:02:13,790 - 00:02:16,669 supporters you had a doubling or people
00:02:16,670 - 00:02:19,039 who felt an understanding of the
00:02:19,040 - 00:02:20,869 positive impacts of the fossil fuel
00:02:20,870 - 00:02:23,109 industry on our environment that also
00:02:23,110 - 00:02:25,939 increased dramatically and routinely I
00:02:25,940 - 00:02:27,839 get notes like this this
00:02:27,840 - 00:02:29,699 as a kid from Harvard who talked about
00:02:29,700 - 00:02:32,098 me changing his mind on fossil fuels
00:02:32,099 - 00:02:34,259 this is this is someone I spoke to who
00:02:34,260 - 00:02:36,598 considered themselves a Marxist and now
00:02:36,599 - 00:02:42,289 runs pro fossil fuel study groups and
00:02:42,290 - 00:02:45,238 what they're being persuaded by I think
00:02:45,239 - 00:02:47,969 is is something very definite that I
00:02:47,970 - 00:02:49,949 think that we could do a lot more of as
00:02:49,950 - 00:02:52,048 a movement and it really comes down to
00:02:52,049 - 00:02:54,598 one word there's one key I think to
00:02:54,599 - 00:02:56,249 being far more influential and
00:02:56,250 - 00:02:59,039 persuasive and I'll give you a head the
00:02:59,040 - 00:03:01,469 word begins with F can anyone guess what
00:03:01,470 - 00:03:09,470 it is flattery no freedom fact fracking
00:03:16,530 - 00:03:20,869 I might have heard flourish no
00:03:20,870 - 00:03:23,189 flourishing that's close that's gonna be
00:03:23,190 - 00:03:25,798 close but actually the word is framework
00:03:25,799 - 00:03:28,409 so framework I think the reason
00:03:28,410 - 00:03:30,238 philosophy is so valuable is because
00:03:30,239 - 00:03:32,669 philosophy deals with frameworks
00:03:32,670 - 00:03:34,349 now when I say framework what I mean is
00:03:34,350 - 00:03:36,988 a framework as a starting structure so
00:03:36,989 - 00:03:38,939 just as when you build a building it has
00:03:38,940 - 00:03:40,919 a starting structure and that determines
00:03:40,920 - 00:03:42,719 and influences everything else about the
00:03:42,720 - 00:03:45,119 building so with any thought process or
00:03:45,120 - 00:03:47,939 any conversation it's built on a certain
00:03:47,940 - 00:03:51,268 framework and I think what happens is we
00:03:51,269 - 00:03:53,939 often get sucked into a framework that's
00:03:53,940 - 00:03:55,619 not the right way of thinking of it and
00:03:55,620 - 00:03:58,078 then we we fall into that framework and
00:03:58,079 - 00:03:59,608 we try to argue within that framework
00:03:59,609 - 00:04:01,979 and I think the reason that I have had a
00:04:01,980 - 00:04:04,798 lot of success on this issue is that
00:04:04,799 - 00:04:06,929 coming from a philosophical background I
00:04:06,930 - 00:04:09,598 very quickly found the framework that we
00:04:09,599 - 00:04:12,149 were using to think about energy and to
00:04:12,150 - 00:04:14,249 talk about energy to be deeply wrong and
00:04:14,250 - 00:04:16,738 then I was able to challenge so I want
00:04:16,739 - 00:04:19,288 to just share my journey thinking about
00:04:19,289 - 00:04:20,488 the framework and challenging the
00:04:20,489 - 00:04:21,869 framework cuz I think that's the key
00:04:21,870 - 00:04:25,079 thing to do the the thing that got me
00:04:25,080 - 00:04:26,579 interested in energy in the first place
00:04:26,580 - 00:04:29,459 was the truth characterized by these
00:04:29,460 - 00:04:32,219 graphs which is that sheep plentiful
00:04:32,220 - 00:04:35,129 reliable energy is fundamental to human
00:04:35,130 - 00:04:37,799 flourishing to human beings living at
00:04:37,800 - 00:04:39,509 their best because cheap plentiful
00:04:39,510 - 00:04:41,649 reliable energy allows us to go
00:04:41,650 - 00:04:45,239 manual labor society to a machine labor
00:04:45,240 - 00:04:47,679 society and that empowers us to get
00:04:47,680 - 00:04:50,109 machines to do our work for us and and
00:04:50,110 - 00:04:52,989 just leads to more prosperity more power
00:04:52,990 - 00:04:56,079 in every area of life and I became
00:04:56,080 - 00:04:58,059 really interested okay if energy is so
00:04:58,060 - 00:05:00,219 important that means that our decisions
00:05:00,220 - 00:05:02,019 about energy are going to be very
00:05:02,020 - 00:05:03,369 leveraged they're going to matter so
00:05:03,370 - 00:05:05,978 much because making energy better is
00:05:05,979 - 00:05:07,239 going to make everything better
00:05:07,240 - 00:05:09,099 and making energy worse is going to make
00:05:09,100 - 00:05:10,959 everything worse and so I thought about
00:05:10,960 - 00:05:13,599 okay well how good is our thinking about
00:05:13,600 - 00:05:16,418 energy and I pretty quickly concluded
00:05:16,419 - 00:05:19,869 it's very very bad and when I say it's
00:05:19,870 - 00:05:23,349 bad I don't mean that quote-unquote dumb
00:05:23,350 - 00:05:25,478 people the uneducated are thinking badly
00:05:25,479 - 00:05:28,299 I mean that so-called smart people these
00:05:28,300 - 00:05:30,129 super educated people are thinking about
00:05:30,130 - 00:05:32,679 it very badly and there are three big
00:05:32,680 - 00:05:34,569 ways I think today's energy conversation
00:05:34,570 - 00:05:37,119 is biased if it gets sloppy and I think
00:05:37,120 - 00:05:39,369 it's anti human so just to give you some
00:05:39,370 - 00:05:41,739 examples that convinced me of this so in
00:05:41,740 - 00:05:44,529 terms of biased one thing is when we're
00:05:44,530 - 00:05:47,469 looking at something like co2 we need to
00:05:47,470 - 00:05:49,659 clearly look at both potential positives
00:05:49,660 - 00:05:52,089 and potential negatives and I learned in
00:05:52,090 - 00:05:54,728 school like okay co2 has a fertilizing
00:05:54,729 - 00:05:56,619 effect on plants and so it was really
00:05:56,620 - 00:05:58,239 surprising that when people talked about
00:05:58,240 - 00:06:01,179 the influence of co2 they almost never
00:06:01,180 - 00:06:03,399 mentioned global greening which is a
00:06:03,400 - 00:06:05,918 significant thing but however
00:06:05,919 - 00:06:07,538 significant it is it would just make
00:06:07,539 - 00:06:09,698 sense logically if you were going to be
00:06:09,699 - 00:06:11,469 fair on the issue to talk about the
00:06:11,470 - 00:06:12,999 potential positives and negatives and
00:06:13,000 - 00:06:14,109 yet they ignored it
00:06:14,110 - 00:06:16,149 which made me think that there's a
00:06:16,150 - 00:06:17,769 certain bias here that's not going to
00:06:17,770 - 00:06:21,219 lead us to the right conclusion or when
00:06:21,220 - 00:06:22,899 I started studying the issue of fracking
00:06:22,900 - 00:06:24,609 hydraulic fracturing and more broadly
00:06:24,610 - 00:06:27,519 shale energy I saw that when people
00:06:27,520 - 00:06:28,959 talked about fracking they would be
00:06:28,960 - 00:06:30,219 obsessed with oh it's going to
00:06:30,220 - 00:06:33,549 contaminate water and yet when I studied
00:06:33,550 - 00:06:36,219 it the basic operations of fracking are
00:06:36,220 - 00:06:37,689 incredibly unlikely to contaminate water
00:06:37,690 - 00:06:39,549 and much less likely to contaminate
00:06:39,550 - 00:06:41,319 water than certain parts of the
00:06:41,320 - 00:06:43,179 production of solar energy such as waste
00:06:43,180 - 00:06:45,519 disposal and mining and yet people only
00:06:45,520 - 00:06:47,168 talk about water danger with fracking
00:06:47,169 - 00:06:50,259 and not with solar so again there's a
00:06:50,260 - 00:06:53,138 bias in our and our framework of
00:06:53,139 - 00:06:55,568 discussing these issues there's an idea
00:06:55,569 - 00:06:57,908 that it's okay to be biased as long as
00:06:57,909 - 00:07:00,158 you're for solar and wind and against
00:07:00,159 - 00:07:02,888 fossil fuels a nuclear and I didn't know
00:07:02,889 - 00:07:05,019 what the truth was but I knew that if we
00:07:05,020 - 00:07:07,628 had this bias we could never reach the
00:07:07,629 - 00:07:09,299 right answer
00:07:09,300 - 00:07:11,769 now there's also this though the worst
00:07:11,770 - 00:07:14,198 form of bias I think is the term climate
00:07:14,199 - 00:07:16,989 change denier because think about what
00:07:16,990 - 00:07:19,148 this means when when I looked into the
00:07:19,149 - 00:07:20,829 so called climate change deniers what I
00:07:20,830 - 00:07:24,098 saw is actually their view was that any
00:07:24,099 - 00:07:26,468 potential risks of co2 were far
00:07:26,469 - 00:07:28,088 outweighed by the benefits of fossil
00:07:28,089 - 00:07:29,588 fuels which is a completely coherent
00:07:29,589 - 00:07:31,688 type of argument and yet the people
00:07:31,689 - 00:07:33,998 calling them climate change deniers what
00:07:33,999 - 00:07:35,829 they're basically saying is it's not
00:07:35,830 - 00:07:37,958 okay to talk about the benefits it's
00:07:37,959 - 00:07:39,848 only okay to talk about the negatives
00:07:39,849 - 00:07:42,158 and so if you support fossil fuels that
00:07:42,159 - 00:07:44,198 must mean you deny any potential
00:07:44,199 - 00:07:45,728 negatives now doesn't mean I think there
00:07:45,729 - 00:07:47,408 are negatives but the logic of their
00:07:47,409 - 00:07:50,049 argument is that it's invalid to
00:07:50,050 - 00:07:51,579 consider the potential positives of
00:07:51,580 - 00:07:53,859 fossil fuels and if you talk about that
00:07:53,860 - 00:07:55,178 and if you think they're positive then
00:07:55,179 - 00:07:56,888 we're going to attack you and analogize
00:07:56,889 - 00:07:59,109 you to a Holocaust denier so this is
00:07:59,110 - 00:08:01,288 just really really bad
00:08:01,289 - 00:08:05,228 now the discussion is also sloppy so in
00:08:05,229 - 00:08:07,388 addition to only looking for positives
00:08:07,389 - 00:08:08,799 with solar and wind and only looking for
00:08:08,800 - 00:08:10,778 negatives with fossil fuels and nuclear
00:08:10,779 - 00:08:12,878 there's a huge tendency toward
00:08:12,879 - 00:08:14,828 exaggeration depending on people's
00:08:14,829 - 00:08:17,528 biases so for example we have Elon Musk
00:08:17,529 - 00:08:20,049 and he talks about he's leaving the
00:08:20,050 - 00:08:22,299 presidential council why because climate
00:08:22,300 - 00:08:24,788 change is real now think about how vague
00:08:24,789 - 00:08:26,888 and sloppy that is climate change is
00:08:26,889 - 00:08:30,098 real to know if if it's a problem
00:08:30,099 - 00:08:31,958 quote-unquote climate change we need to
00:08:31,959 - 00:08:34,418 know how significant is it how
00:08:34,419 - 00:08:36,549 significant is it is its effect on human
00:08:36,550 - 00:08:39,818 life and then what is its what is that
00:08:39,819 - 00:08:41,648 relationship to any posit is a fossil
00:08:41,649 - 00:08:42,908 fuels if you just say climate change is
00:08:42,909 - 00:08:44,168 real that's like you're talking about
00:08:44,169 - 00:08:46,328 vaccines and you say Oh vaccine side
00:08:46,329 - 00:08:48,099 effects are real therefore should be
00:08:48,100 - 00:08:49,719 against vaccines well no it depends on
00:08:49,720 - 00:08:51,669 how big the side effects are and how big
00:08:51,670 - 00:08:53,979 the benefits are so if I support
00:08:53,980 - 00:08:55,448 vaccines that doesn't mean I'm a vaccine
00:08:55,449 - 00:08:57,879 side effect denier it just means that I
00:08:57,880 - 00:09:02,109 have a different evaluation one thing I
00:09:02,110 - 00:09:03,759 saw when I started studying the science
00:09:03,760 - 00:09:04,600 was people just completely
00:09:04,601 - 00:09:06,249 misrepresented the greenhouse effect
00:09:06,250 - 00:09:08,018 they said oh the greenhouse effect is
00:09:08,019 - 00:09:09,189 real leads to warming
00:09:09,190 - 00:09:10,719 but they weren't clear on the nature of
00:09:10,720 - 00:09:13,209 the effect and as I explained in my book
00:09:13,210 - 00:09:15,279 a lot it's a logarithmic or diminishing
00:09:15,280 - 00:09:17,049 effect which means that when you isolate
00:09:17,050 - 00:09:19,089 the effect each new molecule of co2
00:09:19,090 - 00:09:21,819 warms less than the last and but if
00:09:21,820 - 00:09:23,229 people were precise about that we
00:09:23,230 - 00:09:25,059 wouldn't probably be nearly as scared
00:09:25,060 - 00:09:26,829 about warming so there's just this
00:09:26,830 - 00:09:28,479 sloppiness which is really really bad
00:09:28,480 - 00:09:31,779 and this 97% of climate scientists agree
00:09:31,780 - 00:09:33,789 is the same kind of sloppiness agree on
00:09:33,790 - 00:09:35,529 what climate change is real again that's
00:09:35,530 - 00:09:38,109 meaningless it's it's it's sloppy so if
00:09:38,110 - 00:09:40,329 we're biased and sloppy and this way
00:09:40,330 - 00:09:42,219 we're guaranteed to make bad decisions
00:09:42,220 - 00:09:45,159 and sea-level rise from here but
00:09:45,160 - 00:09:47,139 unprecedented sea level rise yet even
00:09:47,140 - 00:09:49,089 wikipedia acknowledges that today's sea
00:09:49,090 - 00:09:50,769 level rises tiny compared to that
00:09:50,770 - 00:09:54,009 experienced by our ancestors ten plus
00:09:54,010 - 00:09:56,619 thousand years ago so there's just this
00:09:56,620 - 00:09:58,119 bias and sloppiness that make it
00:09:58,120 - 00:10:00,129 impossible to determine the truth it
00:10:00,130 - 00:10:01,269 doesn't mean that fossil fuels are
00:10:01,270 - 00:10:02,799 necessarily good it just means that our
00:10:02,800 - 00:10:07,359 discussion is necessarily bad one more
00:10:07,360 - 00:10:09,219 of these is when people talk about solar
00:10:09,220 - 00:10:10,839 and wind capacity oh they're they're
00:10:10,840 - 00:10:13,719 building up this huge capacity but they
00:10:13,720 - 00:10:15,699 neglect that the capacity of an
00:10:15,700 - 00:10:17,799 unreliable uncontrollable source of
00:10:17,800 - 00:10:19,749 energy is totally different than the
00:10:19,750 - 00:10:21,999 capacity of a reliable source of energy
00:10:22,000 - 00:10:23,799 so when people say oh it's a hundred
00:10:23,800 - 00:10:25,329 megawatts of solar and a hundred
00:10:25,330 - 00:10:26,529 megawatts of coal those are two totally
00:10:26,530 - 00:10:29,109 different things that's like saying oh
00:10:29,110 - 00:10:32,109 it's it's a worker who works 40 hours a
00:10:32,110 - 00:10:33,879 week which is like the coal worker and
00:10:33,880 - 00:10:35,769 as reliable versus the worker who works
00:10:35,770 - 00:10:37,269 12 hours a week and you don't know when
00:10:37,270 - 00:10:38,679 they're and come in they have the same
00:10:38,680 - 00:10:40,749 quote-unquote capacity well that's a
00:10:40,750 - 00:10:42,119 real Distortion
00:10:42,120 - 00:10:45,099 the worst part though the deepest thing
00:10:45,100 - 00:10:46,719 that's wrong I believe is that our
00:10:46,720 - 00:10:50,109 conversation is anti-human and the issue
00:10:50,110 - 00:10:51,729 and philosophy of this relates to is
00:10:51,730 - 00:10:53,289 whenever we're talking about any issue
00:10:53,290 - 00:10:54,489 we're talking about making the right
00:10:54,490 - 00:10:56,409 choice or the wrong choice we have to be
00:10:56,410 - 00:10:58,179 really clear about what's our standard
00:10:58,180 - 00:11:00,249 of good or what's our standard of value
00:11:00,250 - 00:11:02,829 how are we measuring good and bad now
00:11:02,830 - 00:11:04,569 the way that I measure good and bad is
00:11:04,570 - 00:11:07,239 by human flourishing by how much a given
00:11:07,240 - 00:11:09,189 course of action is going to benefit
00:11:09,190 - 00:11:11,679 human beings now and in the long run but
00:11:11,680 - 00:11:13,509 what I noticed was in the popular
00:11:13,510 - 00:11:15,939 conversation there was almost no concern
00:11:15,940 - 00:11:18,669 about human flourishing for example the
00:11:18,670 - 00:11:20,709 energy poverty issue there about three
00:11:20,710 - 00:11:21,999 billion people in the world with
00:11:22,000 - 00:11:23,889 no energy and remember energy is
00:11:23,890 - 00:11:26,019 fundamental to human flourishing and we
00:11:26,020 - 00:11:27,909 talk about energy every day and nobody
00:11:27,910 - 00:11:28,660 cares
00:11:28,661 - 00:11:31,269 there's like a thirty thousand word hit
00:11:31,270 - 00:11:32,739 piece in New York Times the other day
00:11:32,740 - 00:11:34,959 and it's completely unimportant to
00:11:34,960 - 00:11:36,549 mention energy poverty and the need for
00:11:36,550 - 00:11:38,109 energy that was trivial that didn't make
00:11:38,110 - 00:11:40,989 the 30,000 word cut in their magazine
00:11:40,990 - 00:11:43,809 and yet what do we agonize about every
00:11:43,810 - 00:11:46,329 day we agonize about Oh a polar bear had
00:11:46,330 - 00:11:48,609 to move from one piece of ice to another
00:11:48,610 - 00:11:51,639 and polar bears literally my favorite
00:11:51,640 - 00:11:54,639 animal but they're still just a very
00:11:54,640 - 00:11:57,339 problematic thing of being worried about
00:11:57,340 - 00:11:58,599 it particularly consecutive more polar
00:11:58,600 - 00:12:01,089 bears than before but why don't we care
00:12:01,090 - 00:12:03,069 about human flourishing and the reason
00:12:03,070 - 00:12:04,749 is because the standard of good in our
00:12:04,750 - 00:12:07,179 discussion is not human flourishing it's
00:12:07,180 - 00:12:10,509 being green and green means unchanged
00:12:10,510 - 00:12:12,969 nature or minimum impact and I think
00:12:12,970 - 00:12:15,069 Green is a horrible standard to use
00:12:15,070 - 00:12:16,839 because human beings survive by
00:12:16,840 - 00:12:18,459 impacting nature we survive by
00:12:18,460 - 00:12:20,259 transforming nature so if we try to
00:12:20,260 - 00:12:22,089 evaluate our energy choices by how green
00:12:22,090 - 00:12:23,559 they are we're going to end up making
00:12:23,560 - 00:12:26,049 anti human energy choices and we're
00:12:26,050 - 00:12:28,239 going to very much dislike the effective
00:12:28,240 - 00:12:30,249 sources of energy such as fossil fuels
00:12:30,250 - 00:12:32,889 nuclear and hydro and guess what guess
00:12:32,890 - 00:12:34,299 which sources of energy the Greens
00:12:34,300 - 00:12:36,789 oppose not the ones that just emit co2
00:12:36,790 - 00:12:38,799 because they oppose nuclear and hydro
00:12:38,800 - 00:12:40,869 which are the best non carbon ones they
00:12:40,870 - 00:12:43,629 oppose any practical form of energy they
00:12:43,630 - 00:12:45,519 only support imaginary energy energy
00:12:45,520 - 00:12:47,379 that they claim will be practical in the
00:12:47,380 - 00:12:49,149 future and then if it ever works then
00:12:49,150 - 00:12:50,379 they're against it because if you're
00:12:50,380 - 00:12:52,869 green in the true sense you're against
00:12:52,870 - 00:12:54,489 industry you're against industrial
00:12:54,490 - 00:12:56,609 progress you're against effective energy
00:12:56,610 - 00:12:59,919 so what I noticed was that the framework
00:12:59,920 - 00:13:02,829 in our culture inevitably made people
00:13:02,830 - 00:13:04,989 against fossil fuels because it was
00:13:04,990 - 00:13:08,619 biased and sloppy and anti human and one
00:13:08,620 - 00:13:11,139 lesson to draw is that unless we can
00:13:11,140 - 00:13:13,389 change people's framework then they're
00:13:13,390 - 00:13:15,699 gonna process anything we say including
00:13:15,700 - 00:13:17,349 any claims to fact they're gonna process
00:13:17,350 - 00:13:19,599 it in that bias sloppy and anti human
00:13:19,600 - 00:13:21,819 way so we need to somehow get around
00:13:21,820 - 00:13:24,429 that and in my own research when I
00:13:24,430 - 00:13:25,959 started thinking about it I tried to
00:13:25,960 - 00:13:27,939 think about it in the opposite way in as
00:13:27,940 - 00:13:30,849 even-handed and precise and Pro human
00:13:30,850 - 00:13:31,830 flourishing way
00:13:31,831 - 00:13:34,589 as possible and usually when I talk to
00:13:34,590 - 00:13:36,479 general audiences I spend a lot of time
00:13:36,480 - 00:13:38,789 on okay here are all the facts about
00:13:38,790 - 00:13:40,559 fossil fuels now at this conference
00:13:40,560 - 00:13:43,049 you've learned just about any fact that
00:13:43,050 - 00:13:44,369 I would present in my book and that I
00:13:44,370 - 00:13:46,409 could tell you but the key thing is that
00:13:46,410 - 00:13:48,869 those facts will not be processed
00:13:48,870 - 00:13:51,569 correctly unless people have the right
00:13:51,570 - 00:13:54,029 framework and so once I became
00:13:54,030 - 00:13:59,789 passionate oh thank you once I became
00:13:59,790 - 00:14:02,189 passionate about the right framework I
00:14:02,190 - 00:14:04,259 and realizing that framework is
00:14:04,260 - 00:14:05,939 fundamental I became very interested in
00:14:05,940 - 00:14:11,729 how do I persuade people and here is the
00:14:11,730 - 00:14:13,199 basic thing that I do and it's it's
00:14:13,200 - 00:14:16,259 almost too simple but it's super super
00:14:16,260 - 00:14:18,719 effective essentially whenever I'm in a
00:14:18,720 - 00:14:20,429 conversation or even whenever I'm
00:14:20,430 - 00:14:22,799 writing I want to make sure that three
00:14:22,800 - 00:14:26,129 things happen that three ideas three
00:14:26,130 - 00:14:27,779 pieces of the framework get established
00:14:27,780 - 00:14:29,639 and that's the pro human flourishing
00:14:29,640 - 00:14:32,489 piece the even-handed piece and the
00:14:32,490 - 00:14:34,259 precise piece so if I'm in a discussion
00:14:34,260 - 00:14:36,119 with somebody and some issue comes up
00:14:36,120 - 00:14:38,039 like the Paris climate Accords I'll I
00:14:38,040 - 00:14:39,479 want to get I don't want to jump into
00:14:39,480 - 00:14:42,089 the facts because how do we even know
00:14:42,090 - 00:14:43,709 what facts to talk about or how to talk
00:14:43,710 - 00:14:46,259 about them I want to ask first hey would
00:14:46,260 - 00:14:49,139 you agree that our goal here is we want
00:14:49,140 - 00:14:51,119 the energy policy that's best for human
00:14:51,120 - 00:14:53,039 beings now and in the future and what I
00:14:53,040 - 00:14:54,779 find is almost everyone will agree some
00:14:54,780 - 00:14:56,189 people won't but then if they don't
00:14:56,190 - 00:14:57,689 agree that the goal is the best policy
00:14:57,690 - 00:14:59,909 for human beings you can't just proceed
00:14:59,910 - 00:15:01,709 and jump into the facts you need to
00:15:01,710 - 00:15:02,789 challenge them and if they're not
00:15:02,790 - 00:15:04,769 willing to value human life then you
00:15:04,770 - 00:15:06,269 need to leave I mean it when people
00:15:06,270 - 00:15:07,829 really won't value human life I just say
00:15:07,830 - 00:15:09,419 well you know what if you don't value
00:15:09,420 - 00:15:10,859 human life then you should absolutely
00:15:10,860 - 00:15:12,599 oppose fossil fuels because you'll get a
00:15:12,600 - 00:15:14,519 lot of people killed and then they don't
00:15:14,520 - 00:15:17,429 usually like that but and sometimes they
00:15:17,430 - 00:15:19,469 then come back so that's one thing that
00:15:19,470 - 00:15:21,119 has to happen another thing that has to
00:15:21,120 - 00:15:22,110 happen is we have to agree to be
00:15:22,111 - 00:15:23,639 even-handed would you agree that to
00:15:23,640 - 00:15:25,439 determine the best policy we need to
00:15:25,440 - 00:15:27,569 look at both the potential positives and
00:15:27,570 - 00:15:29,249 negatives and when you ask that question
00:15:29,250 - 00:15:31,109 a hundred percent of people I've never
00:15:31,110 - 00:15:33,419 had anyone who said I'm only going to
00:15:33,420 - 00:15:34,859 look at the positives or I'm only gonna
00:15:34,860 - 00:15:36,269 look at the negatives and yet if you
00:15:36,270 - 00:15:37,709 don't ask that question that's what
00:15:37,710 - 00:15:39,599 people do all the time they're super
00:15:39,600 - 00:15:42,059 super biased so by making the issue of
00:15:42,060 - 00:15:44,699 framework explicit you can get people to
00:15:44,700 - 00:15:45,510 think way back
00:15:45,511 - 00:15:47,459 than they would if you didn't and the
00:15:47,460 - 00:15:48,959 same thing is true with precision if I
00:15:48,960 - 00:15:50,639 say hey would you do you agree that we
00:15:50,640 - 00:15:52,949 need to be as precise as possible for
00:15:52,950 - 00:15:53,999 instance when we talk about sea level
00:15:54,000 - 00:15:55,679 rise we have to be clear do we mean two
00:15:55,680 - 00:15:57,749 feet in a hundred years like the UN says
00:15:57,750 - 00:16:00,269 or 20 feet in 30 years like Al Gore says
00:16:00,270 - 00:16:02,549 we have to be precise and they'll say of
00:16:02,550 - 00:16:05,279 course but if you didn't establish that
00:16:05,280 - 00:16:07,259 framework they would never do it on
00:16:07,260 - 00:16:09,899 their own so once you establish the
00:16:09,900 - 00:16:11,759 framework whether it's in conversation
00:16:11,760 - 00:16:14,789 or in your writing then people process
00:16:14,790 - 00:16:18,359 the facts in a much better way and I
00:16:18,360 - 00:16:20,399 think the inevitable conclusion once you
00:16:20,400 - 00:16:22,199 start looking at the facts from the
00:16:22,200 - 00:16:24,149 right framework from a human flourishing
00:16:24,150 - 00:16:27,569 based framework is overall that freeing
00:16:27,570 - 00:16:29,429 fossil fuel use instead of restricting
00:16:29,430 - 00:16:31,529 it is going to give billions more people
00:16:31,530 - 00:16:33,419 access to cheap plentiful reliable
00:16:33,420 - 00:16:35,849 energy and I see some of you taking
00:16:35,850 - 00:16:37,709 pictures which I really appreciate
00:16:37,710 - 00:16:39,539 I'm happy to send out the slides but I'm
00:16:39,540 - 00:16:42,599 also going to send out some think
00:16:42,600 - 00:16:44,249 handouts that will be really valuable to
00:16:44,250 - 00:16:45,509 you I'll tell you in a second how to get
00:16:45,510 - 00:16:47,339 them but including there's a five-page
00:16:47,340 - 00:16:49,049 memo that we created for some government
00:16:49,050 - 00:16:51,509 officials on all the key talking points
00:16:51,510 - 00:16:52,949 for the moral case for fossil fuels
00:16:52,950 - 00:16:55,259 including the framing and the facts so
00:16:55,260 - 00:16:57,029 hopefully that'll be really useful to
00:16:57,030 - 00:16:59,009 you and so that's on the the potential
00:16:59,010 - 00:17:01,019 positives of fossil fuels and then when
00:17:01,020 - 00:17:02,489 people really look at the potential
00:17:02,490 - 00:17:04,739 negatives of fossil fuels from a human
00:17:04,740 - 00:17:06,599 flourishing framework what they find is
00:17:06,600 - 00:17:08,809 actually using fossil fuels is
00:17:08,810 - 00:17:10,889 completely compatible with the safe
00:17:10,890 - 00:17:13,919 climate and a clean environment and a
00:17:13,920 - 00:17:16,799 long-term future but it all comes down
00:17:16,800 - 00:17:24,800 to the framework
00:17:26,420 - 00:17:30,149 so one example this happened a few years
00:17:30,150 - 00:17:31,739 ago and this is one when I really
00:17:31,740 - 00:17:33,239 started getting that the key was to
00:17:33,240 - 00:17:35,759 frame things I got interviewed about the
00:17:35,760 - 00:17:38,249 Paris climate Accords and they asked me
00:17:38,250 - 00:17:40,289 the question hey do you think it's good
00:17:40,290 - 00:17:41,939 that society is doing something about
00:17:41,940 - 00:17:43,919 climate change and think about that's a
00:17:43,920 - 00:17:45,779 totally loaded question because the way
00:17:45,780 - 00:17:48,149 it's being framed is should we do
00:17:48,150 - 00:17:49,499 something about climate change which
00:17:49,500 - 00:17:51,239 basically means the only thing we should
00:17:51,240 - 00:17:53,399 be focused on is are we changing climate
00:17:53,400 - 00:17:55,349 are we changing nature but that's not
00:17:55,350 - 00:17:57,329 the human perspective and so what I did
00:17:57,330 - 00:17:59,579 instead of answering that I said and
00:17:59,580 - 00:18:01,649 this is the actual quote I said anytime
00:18:01,650 - 00:18:03,119 world leaders are gathering their
00:18:03,120 - 00:18:04,979 number-one focus needs to be what will
00:18:04,980 - 00:18:07,079 promote human progress and so that
00:18:07,080 - 00:18:09,569 reframed it from the goal is to prevent
00:18:09,570 - 00:18:11,909 climate change from no the goal is to
00:18:11,910 - 00:18:14,549 promote human progress and that totally
00:18:14,550 - 00:18:16,499 flips it and it totally changes it in
00:18:16,500 - 00:18:18,209 the right direction and you can do the
00:18:18,210 - 00:18:20,009 same thing in any conversation as long
00:18:20,010 - 00:18:21,659 as you're aware of making sure that
00:18:21,660 - 00:18:23,519 those three things are in place you got
00:18:23,520 - 00:18:25,019 to be Pro human you have to be
00:18:25,020 - 00:18:27,959 even-handed and precise and if you can
00:18:27,960 - 00:18:30,029 get people on that framework it's
00:18:30,030 - 00:18:32,339 incredibly compelling so the fascinating
00:18:32,340 - 00:18:34,919 thing about framework is framework is
00:18:34,920 - 00:18:36,719 fundamental so it affects how people
00:18:36,720 - 00:18:38,969 process everything but the right
00:18:38,970 - 00:18:41,999 framework is super easy to convince most
00:18:42,000 - 00:18:43,919 people of because the wrong framework
00:18:43,920 - 00:18:47,279 cannot survive unless it's hidden you
00:18:47,280 - 00:18:49,409 can't be biased and sloppy an anti-human
00:18:49,410 - 00:18:52,259 out in the open it has to be hidden so
00:18:52,260 - 00:18:53,759 if we can get the framework issue
00:18:53,760 - 00:18:56,789 explicit we can win over a lot of people
00:18:56,790 - 00:18:58,649 and I think that's really the key to the
00:18:58,650 - 00:19:00,509 success I've had and the key to a lot
00:19:00,510 - 00:19:02,789 more success I can have and we all can
00:19:02,790 - 00:19:06,779 have you take one idea away today it's
00:19:06,780 - 00:19:08,549 that the strategy for successful
00:19:08,550 - 00:19:12,569 persuasion is framework before facts
00:19:12,570 - 00:19:14,999 that is that is really the key and then
00:19:15,000 - 00:19:16,799 it should be a human flourishing based
00:19:16,800 - 00:19:19,589 framework so my goal today was to
00:19:19,590 - 00:19:21,299 convince you of this at a high level
00:19:21,300 - 00:19:23,459 with some examples but so you can see
00:19:23,460 - 00:19:25,169 that yeah it's all about framework and
00:19:25,170 - 00:19:27,599 then hopefully I've given you enough to
00:19:27,600 - 00:19:30,359 have more success immediately but I can
00:19:30,360 - 00:19:32,399 make it a lot lot easier because over
00:19:32,400 - 00:19:34,019 the years I've developed a lot of
00:19:34,020 - 00:19:37,049 materials that very specifically give
00:19:37,050 - 00:19:38,658 you the exact words you need
00:19:38,659 - 00:19:40,608 to reframe these issues in all sorts of
00:19:40,609 - 00:19:42,528 contexts I have videos you can share
00:19:42,529 - 00:19:43,878 with people that frame issues the right
00:19:43,879 - 00:19:44,210 way
00:19:44,211 - 00:19:46,428 I have talking points I have stuff for
00:19:46,429 - 00:19:47,658 companies I have stuff for one-on-one
00:19:47,659 - 00:19:50,028 conversations definitely for political
00:19:50,029 - 00:19:52,368 officials we have things and so I just I
00:19:52,369 - 00:19:54,048 want to empower everyone as much as
00:19:54,049 - 00:19:57,138 possible and all I need from you is just
00:19:57,139 - 00:19:58,939 to get in touch and to give me your
00:19:58,940 - 00:20:01,158 email address now you got cards in your
00:20:01,159 - 00:20:02,748 goodie bag which you probably haven't
00:20:02,749 - 00:20:05,089 carried with you so you have kind of two
00:20:05,090 - 00:20:07,278 options easiest option if you have a
00:20:07,279 - 00:20:09,199 smart phone I won't find it rude just
00:20:09,200 - 00:20:11,959 email me at Alex at Alex Epstein comm
00:20:11,960 - 00:20:14,658 Alex at Alex F CENTCOM and put Heartland
00:20:14,659 - 00:20:16,579 in the subject and anyone viewing online
00:20:16,580 - 00:20:18,978 same deal so just Alex Alex epsilon comm
00:20:18,979 - 00:20:21,768 Heartland and then we can send you all
00:20:21,769 - 00:20:24,288 the resources tomorrow otherwise you can
00:20:24,289 - 00:20:27,168 send your fill out your card so that I
00:20:27,169 - 00:20:29,628 think can just in my experience just we
00:20:29,629 - 00:20:31,158 have the benefit of the Internet where
00:20:31,159 - 00:20:33,168 we can where we can store information we
00:20:33,169 - 00:20:34,638 can share with everyone and so we have
00:20:34,639 - 00:20:37,069 all these resources there in many cases
00:20:37,070 - 00:20:38,238 just sitting there so I would like you
00:20:38,239 - 00:20:40,449 to use them and get a lot of really good
00:20:40,450 - 00:20:43,788 results one favor since I know we have a
00:20:43,789 - 00:20:47,508 really influential audience here is in
00:20:47,509 - 00:20:50,079 terms of my own mission which is really
00:20:50,080 - 00:20:52,459 advancing human flourishing via
00:20:52,460 - 00:20:55,728 industrial progress is and really
00:20:55,729 - 00:20:58,098 helping people frame these discussions
00:20:58,099 - 00:20:59,988 better is if you can think of any
00:20:59,989 - 00:21:01,758 audiences like you who would be
00:21:01,759 - 00:21:03,829 interested in this message if in your
00:21:03,830 - 00:21:05,778 email you could write them particularly
00:21:05,779 - 00:21:07,878 if there are any influential high-level
00:21:07,879 - 00:21:09,168 audiences that you think I should speak
00:21:09,169 - 00:21:10,728 to if you can just if you're willing to
00:21:10,729 - 00:21:12,108 recommend me to them or it's your own
00:21:12,109 - 00:21:13,939 company or own organization if you just
00:21:13,940 - 00:21:15,829 put that name there that would be super
00:21:15,830 - 00:21:17,868 valuable and that'll help me take this
00:21:17,869 - 00:21:20,058 message and all of those resources to
00:21:20,059 - 00:21:22,158 other people so big takeaway today is
00:21:22,159 - 00:21:24,138 the number one thing we need to do is
00:21:24,139 - 00:21:26,658 reframe the conversation based on a
00:21:26,659 - 00:21:28,878 human flourishing framework and easiest
00:21:28,879 - 00:21:30,558 way to get started email me at Alex
00:21:30,559 - 00:21:32,478 italics epsilon comm Heartland in the
00:21:32,479 - 00:21:34,308 subject and I look forward to hearing
00:21:34,309 - 00:21:36,348 all of your success stories thank you
00:21:36,349 - 00:21:37,518 for having me and thanks for everything
00:21:37,519 - 00:21:38,988 Heartland has done to create an amazing
00:21:38,989 - 00:21:45,859 community
00:21:45,860 - 00:21:47,920 you

Edited August 21, 2018 by william.scherk

william.scherk · August 21, 2018

Misconception check. To sort of balance out the Epstein shtick.

Jonathan · August 21, 2018

26 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

We aren't all big readers, especially of unknown bloggers like Victor Venema.

Let's trust Victor! Yay!!! That would be REAL science, because trusting a scientist is how science works! Plus Victor is sooooo debonair.

Oh, wait, Judith Curry is also a REAL scientist, so shouldn't we trust her? And there are lots of other scientists, too, all with differing opinions. Damn, how do we decide which authority to trust? Should we go with the one that makes us have the most feelings? The one that confirms our biases? The most suave and debonair!

Nah. Let's stick with science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Repeated successful predictions. Falsifiability. External review. Data sharing. Openness. Etc.

J

Jonathan · August 21, 2018

2 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Misconception check. To sort of balance out the Epstein shtick.

"Shtick," huh? What an open, scientific attitude!

J

william.scherk · August 21, 2018

Ultra-recursion. This is me at my worst, patiently explaining my understanding.

The list of questions might be useful ...

On 7/5/2015 at 7:34 PM, william.scherk said:

Brant, I am glad we agree on some bases, with general outlines of the Greenhouse Effect. Let's see if I have properly understood further agreement and disagreement.

-- the Greehouse Effect. while physically real, is a part of the complex interaction of an atmosphere.

-- there are variables that have nothing to do with the GHE that also have impacted climate in the distant past and in the recent past. and in the present. Cloud cover, albedo, H₂0, ocean processes, solar intensity and total irradiance, land-changes, on and on.

So far, so good?

You write that you don't know "if we are talking about the same thing" in GHE since you "don't accept there is any significant, if any at all" anthropogenic global warming.

That's fair enough. That is a difference. I think that we have witnessed a significant increase of global mean temperatures in the twentieth century, and I also think these increases -- along with second-order effects -- are due in part to a human-derived 'extra' oomph of Greenhouse Gases emitted into the atmosphere. I also believe that some future warming is 'in the pipe.'

We two had an earlier exchange about seeming differences: I explained that 'climate change' subsumes global warming. One is a component of the larger concept. So when you are unsure about what climate change means to me, it is the suite of first and second-order effects of the GHE of increased emissions.

There is also a kind of climate change (or climate stability) that is not related to humans at the present time -- once we 'remove the signal' of CO₂ increases in the atmosphere. The cycles of ice-ages, though on ten thousand year and greater timescales are an example. Conditions change. The changes have causes. Here we could go into some great detail on every aspect, from solar flares/sunspots to cosmic ray effects on cloud formation, to the great ocean conveyor belts and the tick-tock in human timescales of ocean oscillations like La Nina and El Nino. And more. And then some.

So, we each accept that the climate of earth can change, does change, will change -- on short and medium and long human-relatable timescales. Neither of us accepts 'Climate Change' as meaning 'Global Warming attributed to human emissions' but as a larger set of assumptions and mechanisms of the earth-atmosphere-solar system, some of which may be mistaken. We each reach for specifics rather than a general anodyne phrase ...

About the only places where we may further disagree on objective measures is where we find (and 'how could we trust') differing answers to questions like:

-- over what timescales should we assess 'global warming'?

-- what would be robust findings of global warming look like?

-- has there been a 'significant' amount of earthly temperature rise?

-- what is a 'significant' rise in temperatures?

-- what might be a 'dangerous' rise in temperatures over a defined term?

[WSS added numbers to list Aug 21 2018]

In the rest of your comment, I need a bit more precision to make sure I am not mistaken as to what you think or know or believe:

You don't like the term 'denier' used in conjunction with the phrase 'climate change denier.' Fair enough. It doesn't really say much, does it? If for example you were described as a Climate Change Denier, well, what aspects of which climate over what time and what particular change is being denied? Good questions. We can call Gehrlich, Siddons, and Casey 'Greenhouse Effect Deniers,' but a better fit for you is Greenhouse Effect .... what? Proponent? Believer? Accepter? Words ....

I might agree that some word labels are a kind of crappy verbal assault, shorthand words and phrases that denigrate without fixing the dispute's margins and meanings. I much prefer something like 'proponent' of this or that theory, and 'skeptic' of this or that theory.

No matter our tastes or afflictions, however, the churn of news/commentary/reaction includes the dread word 'denier.' We could each observe a 'no crappy verbal assault shorthands' on these grounds. I hope we each keep crappy verbal assault shorthand to a minimum, and respect the sensibilities of the other.

On to the rest of what was a lengthy sentence with multiple dependent clauses.

You don't like the word denier tossed around against folks who simply are skeptical of this or that claim or uncertainty-bound in the larger debates. You don't like Curry being called a denier and you don't like calling me a denier. I understand and applaud.

You don't like the (shorthand) 'political agenda' of immediate action (in mitigation or reduction of CO₂ emissions, I guess). You don't like the 'before it is too late' alarms given by ... well, I don't know.

I do get the impression you believe that nothing under the rubric of climate change caused by human GHG emissions is actually real -- even while you accept a GHE -- and so no warnings or alarms need be taken seriously by any rational human being.

You doubt, then, such fact-ish notions that sea levels are rising at a rate that might impact humans and their cities and ports. You doubt heightened arctic warming and concomitant knock-on effects of sea-ice decline, melting of permafrost, contaminating ground water ... and so on.

You do not believe that there is a 'settled science' except perhaps the GHE -- you find 'settled science' an argument from authority of the illicit kind. To point to this or that aspect of generally-considered-correct consensus is a coward's gambit in argument.

You believe that CO₂ is only beneficial to humankind as we stand today in 2015 looking ahead a century. Any rise in CO₂ is not going to make any difference in terms of temperatures and knock-on effects. There is nothing to worry about except Big Government forcing policies on a public that just doesn't understand the real reality that you espie.

Finally, you believe that CO₂ increases today (as in the Keeling curve) always and only follow every period of global temperature rise. You believe that increased CO₂ is an effect of warming, not in any way a cause. You believe that a real and proper temperature record of the earth (derived from proxies in much of the record) would show a warming first, and the uptick of CO₂ second.

If I have sketched out what you think and believe fairly accurately, let us say I understand your position.

Do you understand mine? I won't ask you to do any homework or write out what you think I think. I just wanted to settle where I think we agree. Whether or not that leads to any useful further discussion is up to each our druthers. My druthers are to have sustained discussion on disputes in the science claims made under the rubric of Climate Change. I would like to keep outrageous policy discussions separate.

As for Bob, well, he is not interested in anything I have to sell ... I really had a hard time grokking your last paragraph. Was it advice for me or advice for Bob or advice to self?

Other than that, I don't see you interested in a continuing discussion with me on the issues I raise, since you seem to have ended with a 'nobody knows nothing' statement. If I lived in that kind of mental Know-Nothing universe I would seek emigration.

If I have mistaken or misattributed your thinking, let me know. Without verbal assault, please.

What's that old saw about the Mulberry Bush?

william.scherk · August 21, 2018

59 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

We aren't all big readers, especially of unknown bloggers like Victor Venema.

Let's trust Victor!

No. Let's maybe take the time to read the Scott Adams column first. Then choose whether or not to read the VV entry and its following commentary. Then if the VV blog article raises interesting puzzles or makes a good point or two, refer to the arguments and claims and exposition ...

Or ... ignore, evade, rubbish without reading or analyzing for oneself.

Quote

Yay!!! That would be REAL science, because trusting a scientist is how science works! Plus Victor is sooooo debonair.

This approaches vacancy. This implies you are not going to read Adams and then Venema. If I infer correctly, you aren't curious enough to examine the arguments made therein ...

Quote

Oh, wait, Judith Curry is also a REAL scientist, so shouldn't we trust her?

This is quite vacant. If you prefer not to acquaint yourself with her "Lukewarm" or "skeptical" positions on a variety of front-and-centre issues that are subject to debate, that is further indicative of incuriosity, if not unwarranted prejudice.

For me, it ain't about trust, it is about getting to know the subjects by components, getting to know the disagreements by being exposed to both "sides." Should one 'trust' the claims and statements and opinions and analysis? Well, nope -- not without getting acquainted.

A reader of the Adams column might find it a useful heuristic, but then wonder to herself, "has anyone responded to this with a critical, inquiring eye?"

If it confirms her beliefs, why would she care about a dissent or critical response?

Quote

And there are lots of other scientists, too, all with differing opinions.

"Lots of other scientists" with arguments, stances, publications, and other expressions of doubt, certainty, clarification ... about their particular subject area and the broader outlines of a given issue that is contested. For me at least, the contestation is interesting.

Quote

Damn, how do we decide which authority to trust?

I don't know about you or this mythical "we," so can only speak for myself. Reverse the polarity and answer for yourself, "How did Jonathan decide to mistrust Scott Adams and Victor Venema, or Judith Curry or the other five 'both sides' / Red Team-Blue Team presenters at the APS workshop?"

How does anyone maintain a barrier of mistrust and ignorance?

Quote

Should we go with the one that makes us have the most feelings?

You do you. If angry feelings are among your best guides to knowledge, have at 'er. And any time you want to construct a comment that explains specifically what you believe, know, or suspect about components (ie, GHE, projections, scenarios, models), I will have the most feeling of all.

Quote

The one that confirms our biases?

You do you, Jonathan. Tell us what it is you actually believe about, say the Greenhouse Effect and its scientific support ... and everyone can have some feelings about that ...

Quote

The most suave and debonair!

This is worthy of ridicule. It is many long bargepole lengths from the Adams/Venema reading invitation.

If someone is this incurious, I don't always quite trust them to discuss in good faith.

-- since I could be entirely wrong, I am going to do some of Jonathan's postponed or dog-eaten homework. That is, reach out to some of the climate scientists who I share information with, and see if they have a road-map for the inquiry I could put under the rubric "Things Jonathan would like to know."

15 hours ago, Things I ask and nobody answers properly ... said:

As I've asked before, where might I review the 'settled science'?

A person thoroughly unacquainted with the fruitless discussion here might suggest the search function at Weart's book-site, or suggest a trawl and note-taking session at Skeptical Science.

Pre-keyed words at Variable Variability:

Quote

Quote

Labels

acceleration adaptation airports altruism annual climate data Arctic asthma atmospheric models atmospheric temperature slowdown Australiaautomatic weather stations BBC benchmarking Berkeley Earth bibliographic metrics Bjorn Stevens blog moderation blog review blog scienceblogging body fat book review boundary layer meteorology Budapest carbohydrates cherry picking Christians circadian cycle citations citizen scienceclimate "debate" climate audit climate change climate communication climate consensus climate data climate dissentersclimate history climate impacts climate intermittence climate models climate ostriches climate prediction climate projection climate reference networks climate sensitivity climate summit climate variability ClimateFeedback climatology clouds CMIP community competitionconference consensus conservatives conspiracies cooling bias COOP COP corruption creativity crowd sourcing daily climate data data qualitydata rescue data sharing democracy digitisation diversity downscaling DWD dynamics earth quakes ECA&D economic games economic growtheconomics econtalk Ed Hawkins education EGU elections EMS energy transition essential climate variables EUMETNET evolution evolutionary searchexperiment extreme weather fact checking fairness fast warming feedback firm surface fractals freedom of information freedom of research French screen fruit funding future GCOS genetic programming geo-intervention Germany GHCN GISTEMP global seismic change global temperatureglobal warming grassroots journals greenhouse gasses guest post gwpf harassment health HISTALP HOME HOMERhomogenization homogenization workshop humidity IMSC inhomogeneities inhomogeneous reference intelligent search intermittent fasting interpolation IPCC irrigation ISTI ISTI-POST journalism Judith Curry lakes land-use changes language library lidar life style LOESS long range dependence machine learning Matt Ridley mattress media medicine meetings meteorology methodological diversity methodology metrology milkmitigation mitigation sceptics monthly climate data motivation multiple breakpoints nature network analysis network thinking NOAA noise generator non-climatic changes North-wall observations obesity open data open review open science open-access publishing optimizationorganization of science paleo parallel measurements pastured cows pause peer review perturbed-physics. impacts petition philosophypolitics polling popular science POST post publication review posture precipitation productivity publicity publishing quality control radar radiometerrain reasons inhomogeneities records Reinhard Böhm research ideas research proposal rivers satellite data scale sceptical societies science science communication science funding scientific community scientific literature scientific method screen design sea surface temperature sleep social web society spatial variability station data station quality

Edited August 21, 2018 by william.scherk

Jonathan · August 21, 2018

25 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

No. Let's maybe take the time to read the Scott Adams column first. Then choose whether or not to read the VV entry and its following commentary. Then if the VV blog article raises interesting puzzles or makes a good point or two, refer to the arguments and claims and exposition ...

Or ... ignore, evade, rubbish without reading or analyzing for oneself.

Or...let's read everything ever published! If we don't do so, then we're evading and rubbishing and being intentionally ignorant. "Indicative of incuriosity."

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

This implies you are not going to read Adams and then Venema. If I infer correctly, you aren't curious enough to examine the arguments made therein ...

It implies no such thing. You don't infer correctly.

30 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

"Lots of other scientists" with arguments, stances, publications, and other expressions of doubt, certainty, clarification ... about their particular subject area and the broader outlines of a given issue that is contested. For me at least, the contestation is interesting.

It's interesting to me, too. What's even more interesting is real science. Getting to the heart of the matter is much more interesting than eternally dancing around it, avoiding it, ignoring it. Show me the science.

But...if your trusted scientist who is expert in a particular subject is trying to redefine science by throwing out the necessity of repeated successful predictions, falsifiability, external review, data sharing, openness, etc., then he's not doing science, but authority poses and politics.

Show me the science, not another song and dance in its absence.

37 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I don't know about you or this mythical "we," so can only speak for myself. Reverse the polarity and answer for yourself, "How did Jonathan decide to mistrust Scott Adams and Victor Venema, or Judith Curry or the other five 'both sides' / Red Team-Blue Team presenters at the APS workshop?"

How does anyone maintain a barrier of mistrust and ignorance?

Science is not about trust. It is about skepticism, and independent verification or falsification. It's not a about reading others' opinions and learning to trust them lest one be accused of ignorance for putting up "barriers of mistrust."

The idea is not to trust any of them. The idea is not to read the most opinions and feel that doing so amounts to science. The idea would be to present the science of those making the positive truth claim. That's the way that the burden of proof works.

48 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

-- since I could be entirely wrong, I am going to do some of Jonathan's postponed or dog-eaten homework.

Ah, it's MY homework, is it???

I am being lazy in not supporting your argument for you? Somehow, the onus of proof of your position falls to me?

56 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

That is, reach out to some of the climate scientists who I share information with, and see if they have a road-map for the inquiry I could put under the rubric "Things Jonathan would like to know."

It's actually "Things that science requires." Jonathan is just the messenger. You're not really angry with me, Billy, but with the scientific method.

Above, you were just snarking about the lack of curiosity that you illogically assigned to me, yet here you seem to be suggesting that you have no curiosity about the actual science. You're going to ask your science buddy authorities about the "things that Jonathan would like to know," not about what Billy would also like to know? Clearly, you don't know them at this moment. Yet you act as if it's just a mere trivial detail that you'll pass along to me from the big authorities?

"Yeah, there's this Jonathan guy who doesn't know this stuff. Dumb, right? I'm totally with you guys already, but he doesn't get it, so could you give me something to kick his ass with?"

You might want to give them a heads up that dumb old incurious Jonathan isn't the only one with the same questions. They have professional colleagues who are presenting the same challenges.

59 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

A person thoroughly unacquainted with the fruitless discussion here might suggest the search function at Weart's book-site, or suggest a trawl and note-taking session at Skeptical Science.

Will doing so get them access to the science, or to just more opinions, authority poses and appeals to consensus? Will I find there what I've challenged you to present? Or will it be a gigantic waste of my time -- a wild goose chase? If the science is there, and you know it, well, then, why not make this discussion instantly abundantly fruitful by posting it?!!!!

J

Brant Gaede · August 21, 2018

The discussion is not "fruitless." It's only a matter of what fruit to eat.

--Brant

"Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet, but the fruit of the lemon is impossible to eat." The "science" of AGW is impossible to eat (qua science)

william.scherk · August 22, 2018

What fruit came of this exchange between you and I, Brant?

Jonathan · August 23, 2018

On 8/21/2018 at 1:00 PM, Jonathan said:

Ah, it's MY homework, is it???

I am being lazy in not supporting your argument for you? Somehow, the onus of proof of your position falls to me?

It occurred to me that I may have misunderstood Billy's meaning. In referring to "Jonathan's homework," Billy, did you mean not the homework that you think that I have neglected to turn in, but the homework that I've assigned to you? If so, sorry for the misunderstanding above. However, my response still remains the same in essence: It is not homework that I'm giving to you, but rather the reality of the requirements of science, and the dictates of the onus of proof. It's not some irrelevant or tangentially silly burden that old Jonathan has come up with to waste your time, but the core of the issue at hand.

Brant Gaede · August 23, 2018

15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

What fruit came of this exchange between you and I, Brant?

The difference between the basic Canadian intellectual/cultural mindset and the American, which in this country is not academia which is also socialist/European though not so jejune as what you guys up north have.

--Brant

william.scherk · August 24, 2018

From elsewhere on this fabulous site:

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

11 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Good lord, nearly every phrase out of his mouth needs a fact check

Korben,

No it doesn't.

Trump supporters know what he means. They don't need fact checks to know what he means, even when he exaggerates. They can tell the difference between rhetoric and science.

Lots of people who don't like him, though, can't tell this difference. For instance, many of his critics, despite behaving like proper politicians and elitists with good manners, have faith in the apocalypse. They call it manmade climate change. They constantly replace fact with rhetoric to prove it, too--and literally can't tell the difference.

I've debated this long enough to see the pattern.

Michael

Reply to item 490 Even in climate "science" the climate modelers sponsored by the IPCC put their models before accurate hard data. The result: models that don't predict climate outcomes well. In science there is a technical term for models and hypotheses that turn out predictions that are at odds with carefully observed reality. That technical term? "Just plain wrong"

1,199 Comments

Recommended Comments

BaalChatzaf 66

Link to comment

william.scherk 394

Link to comment

william.scherk 394

Link to comment

Jonathan 314

Link to comment

Michael Stuart Kelly 4,521

Link to comment

william.scherk 394

Link to comment

Jonathan 314

Link to comment

Brant Gaede 273

Link to comment

Jonathan 314

Link to comment

9thdoctor 64

Link to comment

9thdoctor 64

Link to comment

anthony 448

Link to comment

william.scherk 394

The terms Global Warming and Climate Change are both used for decades

Climate models are not essential for basic understanding

Link to comment

william.scherk 394

Link to comment

william.scherk 394

Link to comment

Jonathan 314

Link to comment

Jonathan 314

Link to comment

william.scherk 394

Link to comment

william.scherk 394

Labels

Link to comment

Jonathan 314

Link to comment

Brant Gaede 273

Link to comment

william.scherk 394

Link to comment

Jonathan 314

Link to comment

Brant Gaede 273

Link to comment

william.scherk 394

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse

Activity