[PowerLine] SETTLED SCIENCE: LIBERALS MORE CLOSED-MINDED AND INTOLERANT THAN CONSERVATIVES

Not to distract, but to return to some of the others of your climate posts, @Os Trigonum , just a few points.

You claimed, I think, that I was wrong about money because some billions are spent 'on climate.' Not sure how that breaks down, but I can give you some very first-hand data. I'm glad you've won an NSF grant. I too have won some grants, and the following is not at all to brag. It is just to share some data that I tabulated this morning over coffee. The point of the following is that there is an enormous difference between (a) the government spends billions on research, and (b) the conservative mantra that climate science is a big game where scientists just enrich themselves. (That's so laughable, especially compared to the much larger sectors of defense-related research, cancer-related research, and petroleum-related research, all of which get no public controversy.)

Let's say I've won, as the lead author / "principle investigator", $X in total grants (from a few different federal agencies and also some private foundations that support science). What has directly rewarded my bank account? Less than one third of one percent of X. So where did all that money go if it wasn't even enough to help me and Mrs. B-Bob replace our junker car? It went primarily to big equipment purchases, construction, architects' fees, and in some cases to student salaries. (Wow, all summed, when I look at it: talk about a job creator, damn.)

Grants can definitely help someone's prestige. But the idea that scientists are enriching themselves, and lining their pockets, versus actually doing work that they are good at (in most cases) and deeply care about (in the preponderance of cases) is still incorrect.

The other thing our exchange brought out is that you wish scientists had a better appreciation of history (and, it seems to me, of philosophy and sociology). You are (based on your posting) much more interested in those factors than the actual science. And that's very cool. No problem with that. And you are correct when past doom-sayers have been, in many cases, proved wrong. But there is some red herring-ing going on, whether you intend it or not.
1. I believe you once posted that scientists are claiming 100% of warming is due to human activity. I don't sense that this is true. It's very hard to estimate. 70% of the cause? 50% of the cause? 45% or 85%? I don't know. Actual deeply imbedded climate scientists might have a better notion. But we definitely know (to my mind it's beyond doubt) that extra carbon in the atmosphere will only accelerate the warming. I feel that this "100% caused by humans" is a useless red herring.
2. I also think I recall you posting something about the earth being more resilient than scientists give it credit for. Well, not sure scientists are saying what you claim. Planetary scientists and atmospheric scientists usually will admit the Earth is in a very stable equilibrium to support life, abundantly, for millions of years to come, even with extreme carbon levels in the atmosphere or even after a nuclear war. We're just the right distance from the run, with a good mix of things in the atmosphere. It will take an asteroid or gamma-ray burst to change that. That's the scientific consensus, as I understand it.
So, no, we're not talking about ending life on the Earth, but the worry is more specific and worth considering: if the warming trend continues and sea levels continue to rise, it could have a significant effect on humans, and other life forms that have adapted specifically to the current climate.
Coral, for example, is being lost in the warmer and acidifying oceans. That just seems to be true. However, to my point, new types of coral are already evolving. That was a heartening sign. Humans will adapt too. Whether they can adapt without enormous conflict, loss of life, or unsettling waves of forced and unwelcome immigration is an issue of political will.

Okay, to sum up, here's one last go at it, and I'm going to retire again from climate talk. If you're real about it, on this BBS and elsewhere, the trolls run with single phrases and go on about their lunacy of "hoax", etc. So, let's say I'm correct and that you're slightly more interested in the sociology and history of science than the actual data and results of science itself. (For the sake of argument.) There is a fascinating case study for you in modern particle physics. The Large Hadron Collider has, basically, found just one particle. As critics have noted, it once had a blip that launched 500 papers interpreting the blip, and the blip turned out to be pure noise. Super string theorists, it would seem, have lost their way especially. All the super symmetric particles the LHC was supposed to find? They don't seem to exist, billions of collars and huge tunnels later. There's some fascinating and relevant sociology going on in these communities. Those are very important factors.

In climate data and modeling, I think sociology is still an interesting factor, but I'll give you this analogy, because I think the actual data and analysis is much more central and important here. A lot of us see it like this, it strikes me: a handful of people are in a valley, and an avalanche is obviously starting further up the mountainside. One guy is pointing at a rock and saying "well, that rock is not moving and it may never move. how do you explain that, smart guy? The rumbling we hear could be an airplane and it might go away soon." Another guy is saying, "well, I remember when y'all predicted a volcanic eruption and that never happened, so I'm skeptical." The guys are raising their voices b/c the roar of the avalanche is that loud. The scientist is, like, "GTFO guys! Just look up the moutainside at what's coming!" He's trying to hand them binocs but the guys are just criticizing the brand of the binocs and complaining about the focus controls.

Now, it could be that if that analogy has any use at all, it may be that the changes that are happening, and all the carbon to come from Asia alone, etc, mean it really is a landslide and we need to focus on helping people and societies adapt to new conditions instead of arguing about energy sources. That could be. I'll leave y'all with an interesting video about climate scientists in Australia.



As I've said countless times, I hope and want all these people to be very wrong. I'd love it to be mass delusion, but having tracked the data in this field for about the last thirty years, I don't think that's the case, at all. Cheers, and over and out.

PS -- I really like former-skeptic and non-panicking scientist Richard Muller from Berkeley. Here's how he talks to his kids about climate. (He wrote the great book, Physics for Future Presidents, based on a course he teaches, or used to teach, to non-scientists at Berkeley.)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Richard-Mullers-stance-on-climate-change

 

Where scientists are currently making money, and this might be more intrinsic to the University of Oregon, is when they can take a probe, a marker, or something of the sort and spinning that off into a private company. The NSF used to run a ton of bridge grants to help you do that too. One of the graduate students that mentored me developed an organic probe for sensing nitrates in soil run off. I won't put you to sleep with the chemistry of it, but it elicited a color change upon nitrate binding and from that he spun it off into its own company. After getting his Ph.D., he and his adviser took that and starting testing it in field and even selling devices to farmers. Isn't that the Republican American Dream? Government funding helps create a private industry facility to then hire and employ a ton of people while making a sustainable business. That prof along with others had a ton of different side business ventures as well. Heck, one member on my committee used to be a big wig at Molecular Probes/Invitrogen/Life technologies (now Thermo Fisher).

These people aren't looking to get fat and happy on government grants, and in fact, a primary motivating force for a lot of people going to graduate school at all is to make the world a slightly better place. The last thing a lot of them want to do is just check a box and collect their paychecks, if they did, they would have just gone to private industry after getting a bachelor's.

 

I see inconsistency here. You seem to be subscribing to the uncertainty stance (climate change is still very uncertain), while making other certainty statements.

Believing in A and B doesn't mean world-economy-wrecking actions, yesterday, today, or tomorrow.

The believe that there isn't a carbon-neural or renewable(s) (or whatever else) that can be done without wrecking the economy is exactly that. This assumption is wrong long term. And is a debate short-term. How short depends on at what scale, when, and how. Certainty here is invalid based on assumption. You can said it destroy the carbon-emitting industry.

SLOW (climate change) is relative. On an Earth-life-time scale, what we are seeing is freaking fast. On a human one-life time-scale, it is slow moving. But slow doesn't mean slow impact. Can you rule out abrupt impacts? No. In fact, that's a focus - people are trying to understand the impact, not just the "temp" is increasing. Certainty here is a blind spot that can come back and bite you hard. It's a topic that need consideration and studies and has been on-going --- is there some trigger, warning for abrupt impact (to society, to government, to state, etcs)? How to react? How long do you have to react? Etcs. These are all very important questions to consider. While you have reject the "catastropic" certainty, you then have certainty of non-abrupt impact.

 

Who is making that claim? All reports indicate that climate change is going to cause massive human migrations, the spread of more disease carrying insects, and coastal flooding. No scientist is claiming the end of the world. Just a very expensive issue that is going to displace millions and cost billions.

 

Oh boy, It's over. Let's end the discussion because she made a hyperbolic claim. What damage she has done!

 

That's it. Problem solved. Climate change doesn't exist because some extrapolate worst case scenarios.

Here's my point: what is your point?

 

You posted about hyperbolic claims before my post. What was your point before I posted?

 

Yes, I'm intolerant of people who cheered loudly and proudly when their cult leader declared exuberantly in third person that he will shut down all immigration of a group people, some of whom are my closest family members.

If you want me to say I should be tolerant of people who don't want my grandma to visit me here in the States inorder to conform to your insincere moral compass, I'm not. Yes, I'm intolerant of that type of rhetoric.

 

I'm sure you are absolutely outraged.